Editing Faithless elector (section)

=== ''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>