Chiafalo v. Washington

140 S.Ct. 2316 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Every four years, millions of Americans cast a ballot for a presidential candidate. Their votes, though, actually go toward selecting members of the Electoral College, whom each State appoints based on the popular returns. Those few “electors” then choose the President. Every State appoints a slate of electors selected by the political party whose candidate has won the State’s popular vote. Most States also compel electors to pledge in advance to support the nominee of that party. The Constitution does not demands absolute freedom for the elector to vote his own choice. Three Washington electors violated their pledges in the 2016 presidential election. Washington’s voters chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump for President. The State appointed as its electors the nominees of the Washington State Democratic Party. Among those Democratic electors were petitioners Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (Ds). All three pledged to support Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College. They decided to cast their ballots for someone else. The three hoped they could encourage other electors-particularly those from States Donald Trump had carried-to follow their example. The three Electors voted for Colin Powell for President. But their effort failed. Only seven electors across the Nation cast faithless votes-the most in a century, but well short of the goal. Candidate Trump became President Trump. And, more to the point here, the State fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had. Ds claimed that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please. The Washington Superior Court rejected the Electors’ claim in an oral decision, and the State’s Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in a case involving another faithless elector. The Circuit Court held that Colorado could not remove the elector, as its pledge law directs, because the Constitution “provides presidential electors the right to cast a vote” for President “with discretion.” The Supreme court granted certiorari.