Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Justices of all stripes eye chaos if presidential electors are allowed to go rogue

Supreme Court audio oral arguments

The Supreme Court has been conducting oral arguments by conference call this week.

Saul Loeb/Getty Images

The Supreme Court spent two hours Wednesday imagining a world in which presidential electors would be free to vote for whomever they choose. It was not a pretty picture, judging from questions and concerns raised by both liberal and conservatives justices.

While predicting rulings from such oral arguments is a dicey proposition, the tone of the deliberations pointed toward good news for those who believe members of the Electoral College may be compelled to vote for the popular vote winner in their state, the way it generally works now.

If the decision, expected in June, goes the opposite way, the prospect of electors going rogue would cast even more doubt on the predictability and reliability of democratic institutions in our polarized times.

More broadly, the dispute before the court has become a proxy for the ongoing debate about whether the Electoral College should be eliminated in favor of presidential elections entirely by the will of the people.

Two of the past three presidents, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016, won the White House with electoral vote majorities but came in second in the popular vote. Trump's win came even though 10 of the 538 presidential electors were "faithless," meaning they sought to vote for someone other than the candidate their state preferred.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Two of the justices in the court's conservative wing, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, raised the prospect of post-election chaos if electors started acting as free agents and their states could not punish them. Alito brought up the scenario twice.

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's most liberal members, wondered aloud whether the court should leave things as they are if the language of the Constitution is not clear.

The arguments were the last on the court's calendar for this term and, as with nine other cases, they were conducted by conference call because of the coronavirus — with the public allowed to listen in, live, for the first time.

What brought the issue to the high court was the decision by three electors each in Colorado and Washington to cast ballots in 2016 for people other than the Democratic winners of the popular vote in both states: presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine.

All six were part of an effort to get enough electors (it would have taken 37) to go against the wishes of the voters in their states to deny Trump the presidency and throw the election into the House, where they hoped a campaign to choose a Republcian other than him would succeed.

The three Washington electors voted for former GOP Secretary of State Colin Powell and were each fined $1,000 under state law that directed the electors to vote for candidates who had won the most votes statewide.

In Colorado, elector Michael Baca attempted to vote for former Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, also a Republican, at which point he was replaced by someone who voted for Clinton. The other two delegates backed down and supported Clinton.

The faithless electors then challenged the laws in each state. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the punishments, but the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said Colorado had no right to remove Baca.

Lawrence Lessig, the Harvard law professor who's one of the best-known legal minds in the democracy reform world, represented the faithless electors and argued they were exercising the sort of discretion people in those posts have had since the beginning of the country. His brief in the case said more than 180 votes in the 20 presidential elections from 1796 to 2016 were cast for someone other than the voters' choice.

He asserted that, while electors may have a moral or political obligation to vote as their states do, it's unconstitutional to punish them for doing otherwise.

Lessig, responding to Alito's question, denied there was a "good possibility" that chaos would ensue if the court ruled in his favor, although he did concede it was possible.

Becoming president requires winning a majority of 270 members of the Electoral College, or else the decision goes to the House. So theoretically the outcome of an election could be changed by only a handful of electors — or just two of them just 20 years ago, for example, when Bush secured only 271 electoral votes.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that, while the original idea may have been presidential electors unbound by their states' results, that has been the exact practice for most of the country's history.

Lessig argued that no matter the way history has played out the justices had to "interpret the Constitution as it was written," which he believes favors his argument.

Noah Purcell, solicitor general for the state of Washington, said freeing electors to do whatever they wanted without consequence could lead to a scenario where electors could take bribes to determine their votes. "That's just absurd," he said. "That just makes absolutely no sense."

In all, 32 states and the District of Columbia have laws meant to discourage faithless electors. But until the last election, no state had punished or removed such an elector.

A brief in support of states' rights to have such laws was signed by representatives of 45 states.

And Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser closed Wednesday's arguments by calling a ruling that frees electors from control by the states a "treacherous experiment" that could unleash a "time bomb" in our democracy."

Read More

Trump and Biden at the debate

Our political dysfunction was on display during the debate in the simple fact of the binary choice on stage: Trump vs Biden.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The debate, the political duopoly and the future of American democracy

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.

The talk is all about President Joe Biden’s recent debate performance, whether he’ll be replaced at the top of the ticket and what it all means for the very concerning likelihood of another Trump presidency. These are critical questions.

But Donald Trump is also a symptom of broader dysfunction in our political system. That dysfunction has two key sources: a toxic polarization that elevates cultural warfare over policymaking, and a set of rules that protects the major parties from competition and allows them too much control over elections. These rules entrench the major-party duopoly and preclude the emergence of any alternative political leadership, giving polarization in this country its increasingly existential character.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Voters should be able to take the measure of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., since he is poised to win millions of votes in November.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Kennedy should have been in the debate – and states need ranked voting

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

CNN’s presidential debate coincided with a fresh batch of swing-state snapshots that make one thing perfectly clear: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be a longshot to be our 47th president and faces his own controversies, yet the 10 percent he’s often achieving in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and other battlegrounds could easily tilt the presidency.

Why did CNN keep him out with impossible-to-meet requirements? The performances, mistruths and misstatements by Joe Biden and Donald Trump would have shocked Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, who managed to debate seven times without any discussion of golf handicaps — a subject better fit for a “Grumpy Old Men” outtake than one of the year’s two scheduled debates.

Keep ReadingShow less
I Voted stickers

Veterans for All Voters advocates for election reforms that enable more people to participate in primaries.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

Veterans are working to make democracy more representative

Proctor, a Navy veteran, is a volunteer with Veterans for All Voters.

Imagine this: A general election with no negative campaigning and four or five viable candidates (regardless of party affiliation) competing based on their own personal ideas and actions — not simply their level of obstruction or how well they demonize their opponents. In this reformed election process, the candidate with the best ideas and the broadest appeal will win. The result: The exhausted majority will finally be well-represented again.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting at a dropbox in Washington, D.C.

A bill moving through Congress would only allow U.S. citizens to vote in D.C. municipal eletions.

Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images

The battle over noncitizen voting in America's capital

Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.

Should you be allowed to vote if you aren’t an American citizen? Or according to the adage ‘No taxation without representation’, if you pay taxes should you get to choose the representatives who help spend those tax dollars? Those questions are at the heart of the debate over a bill to restrict voting to U.S. citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less
people walking through a polling place

Election workers monitor a little-used polling place in Sandy Springs, Ga., during the state's 2022 primary.

Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

What November election? Half of the U.S. House is already decided.

Troiano is the executive director ofUnite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. He’s also the author of “The Primary Solution.”

Last month, Americans were treated to an embarrassing spectacle: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) tradingpersonal insults related to “fake eyelashes” and a “bleach blonde bad built butch body” during a late-night committee hearing. Some likened it to Bravo’s “Real Housewives” reality TV series, and wondered how it was possible that elected officials could act that way and still be elected to Congress by the voters.

The truth is, the vast majority of us don’t actually elect our House members — not even close. Less than 10 percent of voters in Crockett’s district participated in her 2024 Democratic primary, which all but guaranteed her re-election in the safe blue district. Greene ran unopposed in her GOP primary — meaning she was re-elected without needing to win a single vote. The nearly 600,000 voters in her overwhelmingly red district were denied any meaningful choice. Both contests were decided well before most voters participate in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less