Editing Faithless elector (section)

==Legal rulings==
=== ''Ray v. Blair'' ===
{{main|Ray v. Blair|l1=''Ray v. Blair''}}

The constitutionality of state ''pledge'' laws was confirmed by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] in 1952 in ''[[Ray v. Blair]]''<ref name=":0">''[[Ray v. Blair]]'' {{ussc|343|214|1952}}</ref> in a 5–2 vote.  The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election.  The court also wrote:<ref name=":0" />

{{blockquote | However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an ''assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose'' [emphasis added] in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional. | U.S. Supreme Court | ''Ray v. Blair'', 1952}}

The ruling held only that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice [[Robert H. Jackson|Jackson]], joined by Justice [[William O. Douglas|Douglas]], wrote in his dissent:<ref name=":0" />

{{blockquote|No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text&nbsp;– that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices.}}

In 2015, one legal scholar opined that "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sheppard |first=Stephen M. |date=May 21, 2015 |title=A Case For The Electoral College And For Its Faithless Elector |journal=Wisconsin Law Review |volume=2015 |issue=1 |url=https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2015/02/Sheppard-Final-copy.pdf}}</ref>

=== ''Chiafalo v. Washington'' and ''Colorado Department of State v. Baca'' ===
{{main|Chiafalo v. Washington|l1=''Chiafalo v. Washington''}}

After the 2016 election, electors who attempted to switch their votes in Washington and Colorado were subjected to enforcement of their state's faithless elector laws. The four faithless electors from Washington were each fined $1,000 for breaking their pledge.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2016/12/23/four-state-electors-fined-1000-vote/95796628/|title=Four state electors to be fined $1,000 for vote|last=La Corte|first=Rachel|date=December 23, 2016|work=[[Kitsap Sun]]|access-date=December 25, 2016}}</ref> The electors received legal assistance from the non-profit advocacy group [[Equal Citizens]] founded by [[Lawrence Lessig]]. The Colorado case, ''Baca v. Colorado Department of State'', was initially dismissed by the [[United States District Court for the District of Colorado]]. On appeal, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|10th Circuit]] ruled in August 2019 that Colorado's faithless elector law is unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web |last=Paul |first=Jesse |title=Colorado's presidential electors don't have to vote for candidate who wins the state, federal appeals court rules |url=https://coloradosun.com/2019/08/21/faithless-electors-court-decision-colorado-10th-circuit/ |website=The Colorado Sun |date=21 August 2019 |access-date=22 August 2019}}</ref> Specifically, the opinion held that electors have a constitutional right to vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and are not bound by any prior pledges they may have made. The opinion said the act of voting for president in the electoral college is a federal function not subject to state law and state laws requiring electors to vote only for the candidates they pledged are unconstitutional and unenforceable. On October 16, 2019, Colorado appealed the 10th Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |last=Paul |first=Jesse |title=Colorado asks U.S. Supreme Court to overturn decision allowing presidential electors to vote for whomever they want |url=https://coloradosun.com/?s=Colorado+asks+U.S.+Supreme+Court+to+overturn+decision+allowing+presidential|date=October 16, 2019 |website=Colorado Sun}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Petition for writ of certiorari |url=https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2019/10/Colorado-Cert-Petition-Final.pdf |publisher=Colorado Attorney General |access-date=18 October 2019}}</ref>

The 10th Circuit's decision conflicted with an earlier May 2019 decision by the [[Washington Supreme Court]] ''In re Guerra'',<ref>{{cite web |title=In re Guerra |url=https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/953473.pdf|publisher=Washington Supreme Court|date=May 23, 2019 |access-date=July 6, 2020}}</ref> in which three electors who had $1,000 fines imposed on them for violating their pledges appealed the fines, which were upheld. In contrast to the Colorado case, the Washington court held that presidential electors are state officials under the control of state law and can be criminally punished by a state if they do not vote as they pledged. On October 7, 2019, these electors also appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court asked to decide whether electors must vote for state popular vote winner |url=https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/10/supreme-court-asked-to-decide-whether-electors-must-vote-for-state-popular-vote-winner/ |website=Jurist |date=October 8, 2019 |access-date=18 October 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Petition for writ of certiorari |url=https://equalcitizens.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/19-_PetitionForAWritOfCertiorari.pdf |publisher=Equal Citizens |access-date=18 October 2019}}</ref>

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in both ''Chiafalo v. Washington'' and ''Colorado Department of State v. Baca'' that states may enforce laws to punish faithless electors.<ref name="Chiafalo v. Washington">{{cite web |title=19-465 Chiafalo v. Washington |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf |website=US Supreme Court |date=July 6, 2020|access-date=July 6, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/supreme-court-electoral-college-ruling-states-can-force-electors-to-abide-by-popular-vote.html|title=Electoral College voters can be forced to abide by state popular vote, Supreme Court says|publisher=CNBC|date=July 6, 2020|access-date=July 6, 2020}}</ref>