Chiafalo v. Washington

In the 2016 presidential election, three Washington State Democratic electors—Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John—were pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton, who won the state's popular vote. Instead, they cast their electoral ballots for Colin Powell. Washington law authorized a $1,000 civil fine for electors who violated their pledge, and the State imposed the fine. The electors challenged the penalty in state court, arguing that the Constitution grants Electoral College members absolute discretion to vote as they choose and that punishing them violated the First and Twelfth Amendments. Washington state courts upheld the fine, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. On July 6, 2020, the Court unanimously affirmed, holding that a State may enforce an elector's pledge to support the party's nominee and the state voters' choice for President.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Washington Supreme Court's judgment in a 9-0 decision, holding that a State may enforce an elector's pledge to support the party's nominee and the state voters' choice for President. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined in part by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. The Court relied on the States' broad Article II power to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," reasoning that the power to appoint includes the power to condition the appointment and to enforce those conditions through sanctions.

Whether a State may enforce a presidential elector's pledge to support the party's nominee—and the state voters' choice—for President, or whether the Constitution grants electors absolute discretion to vote as they please and forbids state penalties for faithless voting.

The decision resolved a significant circuit split between the Tenth Circuit (which had ruled for electors in Colorado) and the Washington Supreme Court (which had ruled for the State). It strengthened the constitutional basis for states to bind electors to the popular vote, reducing the risk of faithless electors altering presidential election outcomes. The ruling had immediate implications for the 2020 presidential election, providing clarity on a previously unsettled constitutional question. Legal scholars noted that the decision could also empower state legislatures to direct electors in ways that might enable election subversion, while others viewed it as reinforcing the Electoral College's structural dependence on state authority. The case also bolstered arguments for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.