Chiafalo v.

Washington
What precedent should be set in the election for the
President?
Important Background
● “Faithless electors” are electors who do not cast their electoral college vote
according to the popular vote of the state. There were ten “faithless electors”
during the 2016 election.
● One important precedent in this case if that of Ray v. Blair. In Ray v. Blair, it
was established that parties are allowed to make their electors pledge to vote for
that party’s candidate.
● Currently, 32 states have laws against “faithless electors,” however, 17 of these
have no laws in place to punish such electors.
● Lastly, it is important to note that, while the Constitution lays the groundwork
for the Electoral College, much of the actual rules pertaining to it are left to the
states.
Background on the Electoral Process
● The Electoral College process is laid out in the
Constitution. It says that states will appoint
electors and those electors will vote for the
President. The Constitution does not tell the states
how to appoint their electors.
● States then choose how they appoint their electors.
Most states, but not all, follow this simple
procedure:
○ Before Election day, each party in the state makes a list
of their proposed electors.
○ On election day, the popular vote is actually to determine
which group of electors goes to the electoral college.
○ Depending on the popular vote, the electors from the
winning party go and cast their votes.
The Plaintiff
Bret Chiafalo, the plaintiff in this case, was a
“faithless elector” for the state of Washington
during the 2016 election along with others
nominated by the state. Chiafalo placed his vote
for Colin Powell instead of Hillary Clinton.
Washington fined Chiafalo and the other electors
$1000 each for their faithless electing. Bret
Chiafalo says that Washington was not allowed to
fine him and violated his First Amendment rights.
Main Questions in this Case
● Should states be allowed to penalize
faithless electors?
● Should electors be allowed to not vote
for the candidate that wins their state’s
popular vote?
● Should the Founders’ intent supercede
modern day practicality?
● Do states continue to have power over
their electors once they have appointed
them?
● Do laws against faithless electors
violate the First Amendment?
Should states be allowed to penalize faithless electors?

This is the official question of the

case. Bret Chiafalo was fined for not
voting for Hillary Clinton in the
2016 election. He says that the state
of Washington was not allowed to
penalize him for this offense. The
state of Washington says that it
undoubtedly is allowed to fine him.
Should electors be allowed to not vote for the candidate that wins their
state’s popular vote?

This is the main question in the entire

court case. One side of this question
argues that electors should be allowed to
vote at their own discretion, even if it is
not what their popular vote wanted. The
other side argues that faithless electors
goes against the nature of our
democracy.
Should the Founders’ intent supercede modern day practicality?

This is another question that is at the base of

many of modern cases. The textualists, or the
Founders’ intent side, would argue that since the
Founders allowed for electors to not be bound to
the popular vote, modern day electors should not
be bound to the popular vote. The modern day
practicality side argues that electors have generally
voted with their state’s popular vote for hundreds
of years. Although this is technically an informal
precedent, it should be kept. They also argue that
this is an outdated measure that has no place in the
modern day.
Do states continue to have power over their electors once they have
appointed them?

The electors in this argument say that, once the

states have appointed the electors, they need to
then back off and allow the electors to do their
jobs. Using this, the electors argue that, since
the states no longer have power over them, they
are not allowed to be punished for their faithless
electing. The states argue that, as electors are
simply state representatives, they have power
over them from start to finish. Because of this,
they claim to be allowed to punish the electors.
Do laws against faithless electors violate the First Amendment?

The presidential electors say that a law

that stops electors from using their
discretion when voting violates their
First Amendment rights. The state of
Washington says that electors are not
given ABSOLUTE discretion when they
vote, even in the Constitution. They also
say that the elector operates under the
state, meaning that this law does not
violate any of the electors’ First
Amendment rights.
If a Decision is Reached...
There are two possible decisions in this case:

● The Supreme Court finds that Washington was not allowed to punish
its faithless elector. Chiafalo wins.

● The Supreme Court finds that Washington was allowed to punish its
faithless elector. Chiafalo loses.

Both of these have major implications for the upcoming election.

The Oral Argument was on May 13, 2020.
Based on the Justices’ questioning, their
worries were explained. If their views follow
their questioning, the following appear to be
their views.
Chiafalo Wins! What now?
Chiafalo wins. The states are no longer allowed to punish their faithless electors.

● Justice Kavanaugh posed questions that showed that he believes that the Court should
avoid anything that will lead to chaos. He also, along with many other judges, says that
he believes that this would lead to a lot of uncertainty in election results. At a time when
there is already so much debate surrounding the Electoral College, this could serve to
further reduce trust in it.
● Justice Alito also wonders about the other impacts of reducing limits on the electors. He
wonders what would happen if states are not allowed to remove electors that are unfit for
their job for other reasons, such as corruption.
● On the other hand, this would allow electors to make decisions that they believed were
better for the country. As the Founding Fathers said, this could be a valuable check on
Presidential power.
Chiafalo loses! What now?
Washington wins. States are allowed to punish their faithless electors.

● In this case, many things would stay the same. Most states already do not allow
faithless electors and what this precedent would mainly do is just allow these states
to punish electors who did not vote along the state’s popular vote lines.
● As Justice Sotomayor said, the historical practice has generally been for electors to
vote with their state’s popular election. Even though this is an unofficial precedent,
Sotomayor argues that deciding in favor of Washington would help the Court
reinforce this precedent.
● This would mean that the United States would not have to re-educate the American
people. If Chiafalo had won, the USA would have to require the citizens to
understand that they are voting for ELECTORS, not voting for their president.
My Opinion
The Supreme Court should rule against Chiafalo.

“Faithless electors” threaten the legitimacy of the Electoral College. At a time when
the Electoral College is under harsh scrutiny, allowing “faithless electors” would
further erode trust in the institution. Having an elite 538 electors elect the next
President, unbeholden by a responsibility to the people, goes against the very nature
of the American democracy. Justice Kavanaugh is correct. Allowing “faithless
electors” to do as they please without fear of consequence would lead to chaos in the
upcoming election. Justice Alito’s worries also have merit. As worries about foreign
influence in our democracy increases, it seems counterintuitive to reduce regulations
on the Electoral College.
Bibliography
“The 2nd Article of the U.S. Constitution.” National Constitution Center – The 2nd Article of the U.S. Constitution,

constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii.

“Chiafalo v. Washington.” Ballotpedia, ballotpedia.org/Chiafalo_v._Washington.

"Chiafalo v. Washington." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-465. Accessed 1 Jun. 2020.

Klesmith, Isabella. “The Quad: How the Supreme Court 'Faithless Electors' Case Could Affect Future US Elections.” Daily Bruin,

21 May 2020, 7:30 PM,

dailybruin.com/2020/05/21/the-quad-how-the-supreme-court-faithless-electors-case-could-affect-future-us-elections.

“Ray v. Blair - 343 U.S. 214, 72 S. Ct. 654 (1952).” Community,www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-ray-v-blair.