U.S. Supreme Court rules against faithless electors

When voters cast a ballot for a presidential candidate, they’re really voting for a slate of Presidential Electors as established by the Constitution.

Founder Alexander Hamilton believed the electors should be able to overrule voters who may have let passion override good judgment.

“All of us do truly believe that the founding fathers intended electors to be an emergency brake. And Trump proved the necessity for it,” said Bret Chiafalo, one of Washington’s Democratic electors in 2016.

He was pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton since she won Washington. Instead, he broke that pledge to vote for Republican Colin Powell to persuade Republican electors in other states not to vote for Donald Trump.

Chiafalo and two other Washington electors challenged the $1000 fine for breaking their pledge.

But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that “A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee-and the state voters’ choice-for President.”

“The state can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty.” Justice Elana Kagan said, writing for a unanimous court.

“Frankly, win or lose, this was an important question for the American people,” said Chiafalo.

Secretary of State Wyman said, "I am pleased to see that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld our role to ensure the popular vote of the people is represented in the electoral votes cast."

Still, Chiafalo says today's decision brings attention to his ultimate goal of abolishing the electoral college so that the popular vote can rule.

“I still truly believe that a constitutional amendment is the only way to truly address the electoral college,” Chiafalo said.

Just last year, Washington passed a law that replaces an elector who refuses to go along with the popular vote here.

© 2020 Cox Media Group