Chiafalo v. Washington (2019)
- Docket
- 19-465
- Decided
- 2019-01-01
- Public Good score
- 85 / 100
- Framers' Intent score
- 92 / 100
Summary
Question: <p>Does a state law requiring presidential electors to vote the way state law directs or else be subject to a fine violate the electors’ First Amendment rights?</p> Conclusion: <p>A state may constitutionally enforce a presidential elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion that was unanimous in the judgment.</p> <p>Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” which the Court has interpreted as conveying to the states “the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. The Twelfth Amendment, which also addresses the Electoral College, only sets out the electors’ voting procedures. Thus, the appointment power of the states is extensive, and nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from taking away the discretion of presidential electors’ discretion, as Washington does. The history of voting in this country supports the conclusion that electors do not have the discretion to vote however they like; indeed “long settled and established practice” of voting in this nation requires finding that electors are required to vote for the candidate whom the state’s voters have chosen.</p> <p>Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, but for a different reason. Justice Thomas disagreed with the Court that Article II determines the outcome in this case; he would resolve this case by simply recognizing the principle enshrined in the Tenth Amendment that “[a]ll powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State.” Justice Neil Gorsuch joined as to the discussion of the Tenth Amendment.</p>
Case Brief
Facts
Washington State statutes require presidential electors to vote for the candidate who won the state's popular vote, imposing fines or penalties for 'faithless' votes. Three electors declined to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, claiming their votes were necessary to prevent an unqualified candidate. Washington enforced the statute against them, imposing fines.
Procedural History
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the fines against the electors. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether states could penalize faithless electors under the First Amendment.
Issue
Does a state law requiring presidential electors to vote for the candidate who won the state's popular vote—subjecting them to fines for violating that pledge—violate the electors’ First Amendment rights?
Holding
Yes, states may constitutionally enforce a requirement that electors vote for the candidate who won the state's popular vote, subject to penalties for noncompliance, without violating the First Amendment.
Rule
Under Article II, Section 1, states possess plenary authority to appoint electors 'in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,' including imposing binding obligations on electors. The Constitution does not guarantee electors discretion to vote contrary to the state's popular vote, as historical practices and the Twelfth Amendment's procedural framework confirm electors serve as the state's agents.
Reasoning
The Court rejected the argument that compelled voting violates the First Amendment. Article II's text and history grant states 'the broadest power of determination' over electors, unencumbered by federal constitutional constraints on their discretion. The Twelfth Amendment only governs electoral procedures, not state appointment authority. Historical practice demonstrates electors have not possessed independent voting discretion, as the Constitution's framework assumes their role as state delegates.
Significance
This decision settled a decades-long debate over faithless electors, affirming states' near-total control over presidential electors' conduct. It reinforced the state's authority to manage the Electoral College under Article II, preventing electors from becoming independent actors in the presidential selection process.
Public Good Analysis
GPT: The ruling reinforces democratic accountability by ensuring electors align with state popular votes, preventing 'faithless elector' disruptions that could undermine voter choice and trust. This strengthens the foundational principle of popular sovereignty in presidential elections, directly benefiting public trust and fair electoral outcomes. | Claude: This decision reinforces the democratic principle of popular sovereignty by upholding that electors should reflect the will of the voters. Allowing faithless electors to undermine election outcomes would erode public trust and potentially disenfranchise millions. It ensures stability in presidential elections and prevents manipulation of the electoral process.
Framers' Intent Analysis
GPT: The decision properly aligns with Article II, Section 1 (granting states exclusive authority to appoint electors 'in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct') and Federalist No. 68, where Hamilton emphasized electors as representatives bound to the people's choice. It rejects interpretive shifts contradicting the Founders' design of the Electoral College as a state-directed process. | Claude: The majority opinion correctly identifies the broad authority granted to state legislatures over the appointment of electors, as explicitly stated in Article II, Section 1. James Madison, in Federalist No. 68, emphasized that electors were intended to exercise a deliberate judgment; however, the current system of pledged electors aligns with the framers' vision of state control and maintaining a balance between popular participation and reasoned decision-making within defined parameters. Thomas’ concurrence, emphasizing Tenth Amendment principles of reserved powers to the states, further strengthens this alignment.