The Supreme Court ruled Monday that U.S. states have the right to remove and punish members of the Electoral College for not backing the presidential candidate whom they pledged to support.
The unanimous ruling, which comes ahead of November's election between President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden, allows states to use measures to bind Electoral College members to their commitments, essentially preventing them from going against the will of a state's voting majority.
The court sided with Washington state and Colorado, which had imposed penalties on several "faithless electors" – so named because they defied pledges in 2016 to vote for the winner of their states' popular vote, Democrat Hillary Clinton.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the BOK Center, Tulsa, U.S., June 20, 2020. /AP
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the BOK Center, Tulsa, U.S., June 20, 2020. /AP
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the ruling "reaffirmed the fundamental principle that the vote of the people should matter in choosing the president."
State officials have said faithless electors threaten the integrity of American democracy by subverting the will of the electorate and opening the door to corruption. The plaintiffs had argued that the Constitution requires them to exercise independent judgment to prevent unfit candidates from taking office.
"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," liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote on behalf of the court.
Under the system set out in the U.S. Constitution in the 18th century, a presidential election's winner is determined not by amassing a majority in the national popular vote but by securing a majority of electoral votes allotted to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
Read more:
U.S. Supreme Court: States can punish Electoral College voters
Voting equipment for polling centers stored at the Albany County Board of Elections count absentee ballots, Albany, U.S., June 30, 2020. /AP
Voting equipment for polling centers stored at the Albany County Board of Elections count absentee ballots, Albany, U.S., June 30, 2020. /AP
Historically, so-called faithless electors have been rare. During the presidential elections organized from 1796 to 2016, only 180 electors have voted contrary to their pledge, according to a document admitted to the court.
Advocates of faithless electors argued that since the Constitution makes no mention of the issue, states should not be allowed to fine or remove electors who do not remain true to their commitments. But all nine Supreme Court justices concluded that states can assure that their electors "have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens."
Trump, a Republican, defeated Clinton by a margin of 304 to 227 Electoral College votes despite losing the popular vote nationally by about 3 million votes.
Lawrence Lessig, the lawyer representing the electors, said he was disappointed in the ruling but was glad the legal question has been resolved.
"When we launched these cases, we did it because regardless of the outcome, it was critical to resolve this question before it created a constitutional crisis," Lessig added.
(With input from Reuters, AFP)