Chiafalo v. Washington

Chiafalo v. Washington Chiafalo v. Washington was a 2020 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States addressing whether states may enforce laws that bind Electoral College members to vote for the presidential candidate who won the state's popular vote. The Court unanimously upheld state power to enforce such laws, resolving disputes that involved state statutes, the Twelfth Amendment, and state enforcement mechanisms such as fines and potential criminal penalties. The ruling intersected with debates involving the Electoral Count Act of 1887, presidential elections of 2016 United States presidential election and 2020 United States presidential election, and scholarly discussion in constitutional law and federalism.

Background

The case arose after the 2016 United States presidential election spurred attention to faithless electors who deviated from pledged votes. In Washington (state), state law imposed fines on Elector (United States)s who attempted to cast ballots contrary to the state's popular-vote winner; in Michigan, a separate dispute involved alternate elector processes and state ballot procedures. Petitioners included Joyce Chiafalo and others who sought to cast votes for faithless elector alternatives to the presidential electors chosen under state law, prompting enforcement by the Washington Secretary of State and threats of sanction under state statute. The factual matrix referenced earlier litigation such as Ray v. Blair, precedent from the 1930s and conflicting authority about state authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Supreme Court case

The Court granted certiorari to resolve a split concerning state power to control elector votes and to clarify the interplay between historical practice and textual provisions in the Twelfth Amendment. Oral arguments featured counsel referencing decisions like McPherson v. Blacker and statutory interpretation of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, with amici including scholars from Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute. The docket drew attention from members of Congress in both the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, as well as commentary in outlets like the New York Times, The Washington Post, and legal journals from Columbia Law School.

Legal issues and reasoning

Central legal issues concerned whether state laws that bind electors are consistent with the Constitution's allocation of power in the Article II of the U.S. Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment, and whether state enforcement violates principles articulated in cases like Ray v. Blair and McPherson v. Blacker. The Court examined textualist arguments invoking the Twelfth Amendment's reference to "votes" and structuralist arguments based on historical practices from the Founding Fathers era involving George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and debates at the Constitutional Convention. The majority applied precedent about state authority over ballot access and selection mechanisms, analyzed the role of state statutes and administrative enforcement by officials such as the state secretary of state, and considered remedies ranging from civil fines to criminal sanctions under state law. The Court also considered potential tensions with the Electoral Count Act and concerns raised by scholars at Stanford Law School and University of Chicago Law School regarding federalism and the integrity of the electoral process.

Opinions

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the principal opinion for the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, which concluded that states may enforce an elector's pledge. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred, offering a narrower rationale emphasizing state authority under its selection and removal powers and citing historical practice including cases like McPherson v. Blacker. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion dissenting in part, asserting concerns about the scope of state power and implications for individual elector autonomy and invoking originalist commentary referencing The Federalist Papers and deliberations at the Constitutional Convention. The opinions engaged with academic commentary from institutions including Georgetown University Law Center and NYU School of Law.

Impact and aftermath

The decision had immediate effects on state election law and practice, reinforcing statutes in states like Washington (state), Colorado, and Maine that bind electors, while informing electoral strategies in the wake of the 2020 United States presidential election. The ruling influenced litigation related to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and prompted legislative activity in several legislatures such as the Washington State Legislature and the Michigan Legislature to clarify elector obligations and enforcement mechanisms. Legal scholars from University of Virginia School of Law and policy analysts at think tanks like the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Brookings Institution debated the decision's implications for democratic legitimacy, interstate variation in elector rules, and potential future challenges to the Electoral College. The case remains a reference point in constitutional law courses at Yale Law School and in commentary on presidential selection reform movements advocating National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or amendment proposals discussed in the United States Congress.

Category:United States Supreme Court cases