The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can prohibit their presidential electors from supporting someone other than the candidate chosen by voters in their state, the Wall Street Journal reports.
What We Know:
- The court’s decision upholds state requirements that presidential electors must stick with the state’s popular vote.
- “The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for president,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote.
- The amount of presidential electors is equal to the state’s congressional delegation and political parties generally control the selection of electors in each state. 32 states and the District of Columbia require electors to vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote.
- In states where this requirement does not exist, the majority of electors vote in favor of the candidate selected by their state, though some have deviated. It has never been enough to sway an election, but it becomes more important as elections tighten.
- In the 2016 election, 10 of 538 electors attempted to vote for a presidential candidate other than the one selected by their state’s voters. The effort was designed to encourage Republican electors to defect from Donald Trump to a compromise candidate.
- Previously, three electors from Washington state challenged the $1,000 fines they received for not voting for Hillary Clinton.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will allow state’s to have greater control over the electoral process which has long been scrutinized as not representing the true voice of the people. The court’s decision was unanimous, though Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch favored different legal reasoning than the other seven justices.
