SCOTUS: Punishment For Faithless Electors (Chiafalo v. Washington)

On July 7, 2020, the Supreme Court made a major decision in the case of Chiafalo v. Washington regarding faithless electors in the Electoral College, especially with regard to those in the 2016 presidential election. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the ability to enforce an elector’s pledge in a presidential election.

In the Electoral College, the 538 electors are assigned to vote for a certain candidate, and they often pledge to vote for a certain candidate. A faithless elector is an elector who votes for a candidate other than the one they pledged to vote for, or if they choose to abstain from voting. Although faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election, the issue could come into scrutiny if the race was close. 32 states plus Washington, D.C., currently have laws to prevent faithless electors, but they have never been used before the 2016 election. This particular case focused on the state of Washington, which had a law requiring electors selected by their party to vote for the candidate of their party or be fined $1,000.

Other states’ laws might include removing the faithless elector and replacing them with a new elector.

There were seven faithless electors in the 2016 election, a record number. Four of these electors came from the state of Washington, where, after they had signed pledges to vote for the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, chose to vote for candidates other than her. As per the aforementioned law, they were all fined $1,000.

Three of the electors (including Chiafalo) challenged the fine in court, saying that the fine was unconstitutional. They cited the Twelfth Amendment, saying that once they were appointed as electors, the state had no more authority over them and they were free to vote as they chose.

In an administrative court, a judge upheld the fines, citing that it was in accordance with state law. He had no power to rule whether or not the law was constitutional. At the Thurston County Superior Court, a judge ruled in favor of the state in 2017 and continued to uphold the fines. The electors appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which, in May 2019, ruled 8-1 in favor of the state, continuing to uphold the lower court’s ruling. They then appealed to the United States Supreme Court in October, which agreed to hear their case in January 2020.

Oral arguments were heard on May 13, 2020, via teleconference due to the ongoing pandemic. The main concern was the chaos that would ensue should electors be able to vote however they liked. The electors argued that the Constitution does not allow states to restrict electors’ votes, but the justices said the Constitution did not block such restrictions.

On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court announced its ruling. In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, stating that states could enforce how an elector votes. In the majority decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “the Constitution’s text and the Nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President.”

The Supreme Court’s decision will influence the Electoral College from the 2020 presidential election onward. In an increasingly polarized and dangerous political atmosphere, faithless electors could become very important and subject to scrutiny if not dealt with. The case was decided alongside a similar case, Colorado v. Baca, where instead of fining the elector, the state chose to replace them instead.