Yes, the state was allowed to fine the electors. The Constitution gives states a lot of power to decide how they pick their electors. This power includes making rules for them, like requiring them to promise to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote. If a state can make them promise, it also has the power to punish them for breaking that promise. The Constitution doesn't say electors have a right to vote for whomever they want, and for over 200 years, electors have been seen as messengers for the voters, not independent decision-makers.

Yes, the fines are okay, but for a different reason. The Constitution is actually silent on this issue. Because the Constitution doesn't give this power to the federal government or forbid states from having it, the Tenth Amendment says the power belongs to the states. So, Washington can make this rule simply because the Constitution doesn't stop it from doing so.

No, the Constitution does not stop states from making electors keep their promises to vote for the candidate the state's voters picked. Both the words of the Constitution and the way things have been done throughout U.S. history show that states are allowed to make electors vote the way the state's voters want. The Constitution gives states a lot of power over choosing electors, and doesn't give electors themselves any special rights. For a long time, states have chosen electors who promise to vote for the candidate that wins the state's popular vote. Electors have very rarely gone against the voters' choice. Laws punishing electors who break their promises have been common for about 100 years. The Constitution doesn't say much about electors, and nothing in it stops a state from making electors follow the will of the voters. Letting states make electors keep their promises fits with the Constitution and the idea that the people's vote should decide who becomes president.

I agree with the final decision because the state can make sure electors vote for the winning candidate. However, I see things differently from the majority because I don’t think the Constitution clearly gives states the power to tie electors’ votes. Instead, I believe the power comes from the idea that if the Constitution doesn’t give a power to the federal government, then it belongs to the states and the people. In simple terms, while I agree with the result, I think the real reason is about protecting state rights and the people’s control, not because Article II says so.

Yes, the U.S. Constitution permits a state to penalize a presidential elector for failing to vote for the presidential candidate they had pledged to support. Article II, Section 1 grants states the broadest power to appoint electors 'in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,' which includes the authority to impose conditions on that appointment, such as requiring a pledge. The power to require a pledge logically includes the power to enforce it. The text of the Constitution, including the Twelfth Amendment, does not grant electors any constitutional right to exercise independent discretion; terms like 'elector,' 'vote,' and 'ballot' do not inherently imply a right to personal choice. Furthermore, over 200 years of historical practice demonstrate that electors have consistently been understood to be agents of the voters, not independent deliberators, a practice the Twelfth Amendment was designed to facilitate.

Yes, a state may penalize a faithless elector, but this authority derives from the Tenth Amendment, not Article II. The Constitution is silent on the specific question of whether a state can bind its electors. Article II's 'Manner' clause merely addresses the method of appointing electors, not the power to impose substantive conditions on how they vote after appointment. Under the Tenth Amendment, any powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people. Because the Constitution does not prohibit states from binding their electors, this power is reserved to the states.

No, Article II and the Twelfth Amendment do not prevent a State from enforcing an elector's pledge to support their party's nominee for President. The Constitution's text and the nation's history support allowing a State to enforce an elector's pledge to support the state voters' choice for President. Article II, §1 and the Twelfth Amendment give States broad authority over electors, and give electors themselves no rights. States have long used this power to appoint electors who are committed to vote for the presidential candidate who won the State's popular vote. Electors have only rarely exercised discretion in casting their votes for President, and laws punishing faithless electors have been common since the early 20th century. The Constitution is barebones about electors, and nothing in its text prevents a State from directing electors to follow the will of the voters. Allowing States to enforce pledges by electors accords with the Constitution as well as the trust of the Nation that the people's vote should determine the President.

I join in the judgment because the outcome properly affirms that States may enforce an elector’s pledge; however, I differ from the majority in my reasoning. Rather than basing the state’s power on Article II as the majority does, I believe the Constitution is silent on binding electors and that the authority of a State derives from the principle that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or the people. I concur only in the judgment because, in my view, the judicial foundation should rest on the reserved powers doctrine—the Tenth Amendment—rather than on an expansive reading of Article II. This difference in approach highlights my commitment to grounding the decision in state sovereignty and the consent of the people.

Chiafalo v. Washington

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot