• Home
  • Opinion
  • Quizzes
  • Redistricting
  • Sections
  • About Us
  • Voting
  • Events
  • Civic Ed
  • Campaign Finance
  • Directory
  • Election Dissection
  • Fact Check
  • Glossary
  • Independent Voter News
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Voting>
  3. balance of power>

Allow us to punish faithless electors, nearly half the states ask Supreme Court

Our Staff
November 21, 2019

There are now 23 states asking the Supreme Court to answer a basic question about the process of electing the president: Can they bind a member of the Electoral College to vote for the state's popular vote winner?

A group of 22 states on Wednesday asked the court to take up a case involving a so-called faithless elector in Colorado, who was dismissed and replaced in 2016 after refusing to vote for Hilary Clinton even though she won the state's popular vote. The elector challenged his dismissal in a lawsuit, which a lower court allowed to move forward.

The brief from Colorado's allies argues the court should reverse that decision, effectively giving a green light for states to enforce laws that require an elector to cast their votes for the candidate who carries their state. Thirty-two states have such laws.


Without guidance from the court, the Colorado case "creates considerable uncertainty regarding the authority of states when appointing presidential electors and the validity of laws binding electors to follow the will of the electorate," said the brief from the 22 state attorneys general.

The justices are also considering a case centered on three 2016 electors who got punished for their faithlessness by the state of Washington and want the court to rule that such binding laws are unconstitutional.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

From Your Site Articles
  • Making every vote count: An alternative plan for fixing our ›
  • Four arguments defending the Electoral College are all wrong - The ... ›
  • Two states asking Supreme Court for permission to regulate ... ›
  • Justices see chaos if electors could make own choices - The Fulcrum ›
  • High court says states can require electors to be faithful - The Fulcrum ›
  • Faithless electors decision doesn't address democracy's ills - The Fulcrum ›
  • What does the SCOTUS faithless elector decision mean? - The Fulcrum ›
balance of power

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Follow
Contributors

Reform in 2023: Leadership worth celebrating

Layla Zaidane

Two technology balancing acts

Dave Anderson

Reform in 2023: It’s time for the civil rights community to embrace independent voters

Jeremy Gruber

Congress’ fix to presidential votes lights the way for broader election reform

Kevin Johnson

Democrats and Republicans want the status quo, but we need to move Forward

Christine Todd Whitman

Reform in 2023: Building a beacon of hope in Boston

Henry Santana
Jerren Chang
latest News

Your Take: Bank failures, protection and regulation

Our Staff
3h

Threats against Michigan women leaders highlight ongoing concerns over political violence

Barbara Rodriguez, The 19th
3h

Reframing judicial elections — not “who should we elect,” but “why should we elect them at all?”

Alexander Vanderklipp
16 March

Seven Days in March

Lawrence Goldstone
16 March

Video: Modernizing Congress: The business case to upgrade government

Our Staff
16 March

Something is horribly, horribly wrong

Debilyn Molineaux
15 March
Videos

Video: A conversation with Tiahna Pantovich

Our Staff

Video: What would happen if Trump was a third-party candidate in 2024?

Our Staff

Video: How the Federal Reserve is the shadow branch of the government

Our Staff

Video: 2023 National Week of Conversation

Our Staff

Video: Bipartisan lunch with lawmakers: Making elections work better in PA

Our Staff

Video: Antisemitism and its impacts

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: A tricky dance

Our Staff
14 March

Podcast: Kevin, Tucker and wokism, oh my!

Debilyn Molineaux
David Riordan
13 March

Podcast: Civic learning amid the culture wars

Our Staff
13 March

Podcast: Winning legislative majorities

Our Staff
09 March
Recommended
Your Take: Bank failures, protection and regulation

Your Take: Bank failures, protection and regulation

Your Take
Threats against Michigan women leaders highlight ongoing concerns over political violence

Threats against Michigan women leaders highlight ongoing concerns over political violence

Big Picture
Video: A conversation with Tiahna Pantovich

Video: A conversation with Tiahna Pantovich

Reframing judicial elections — not “who should we elect,” but “why should we elect them at all?”

Reframing judicial elections — not “who should we elect,” but “why should we elect them at all?”

Judicial
Seven Days in March

Seven Days in March

Threats to democracy
Video: Modernizing Congress: The business case to upgrade government

Video: Modernizing Congress: The business case to upgrade government

Congress