thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court the constitution authorizes states to use their plan area thirty to remove up arrived elector one who engages in a rebellion or one who had perpetrate a bait and switch on the people of their state by voting contrary to a binding pledge by contrast if the state wishes to treat electors as free agents rather than as proxy voters it is free to do so in short states determine how to select electors and ensure that they meet the relevant requirements and perform their duties as assigned this means under green that states can oversee bribery as an incident as a power to appoint this must include the power to remove an elector without requiring a full criminal trial under my friend mr less expose ition as a practicality bribe electors would cast ballots and illegal votes in this case the state prevented mr baka from casting the legal ballot just like it's an illegal ballot if you don't sign it here in colorado as this court explained in re the purpose and history of the th amendment reflected the reality that electors acted as pledged agents for their political parties and the history of such pledges should be given great weight as to justice ginsburg's point about the importance of enforcing a pledge requirement it's worth noting people reliance such pledges which were taken voluntarily and as justice scalia explained in the intertribal council case voting requirements would be of little value if not enforced in the almost seventy years since ray states of continuous enact laws  st question is to ask if there is anything that general purcell said on behalf of the state of washington with which you disagree thank you so much mr chief justice i would only add a slight wrinkle he did indeed endorse our th amendment argument what i would say on that is the th amendment is an important target of principle because the constitution gave the states authority over elections the th amendment underscores that point would you state for me exactly what you think the limits on the state power to replace electors are honor here i would echo my colleague from washington it governs whether or not another constitutional provision is violated the th amendment quite notably means a state could not remove an elect based on race or religion also the qualifications clause means you can't remove electors for the purpose of adding qualifications for who can be president so if you selected electors one of the requirements is they had to be relatives of the legislators that would be all right your honor here in colorado we picked elect and seventy six the state legislature did it directly as long as that choice doesn't violate a constitutional provision they can pick whoever they want what if the rule is you know the electors are chosen pursuant to slaves  but anyone who says anything disloyal to the state between the time we are selected and the time they cast their vote will be replaced honor as my colleague from washington noted once people are voting to make a choice people have a right for their ballots to be counted and here in this hypothetical you just noted the balance of people would be invalidate after the fact that implicates gray versus sanders and this court's line of right to vote cases any other limitations on the power of the state what about the bribery cases that have been or bribery hypotheticals that have been discussed thank you mr chief justice the ability to remove bribe electors is crucial for this state to have and not only after a criminal trial but after there is a basis for this concern to your point if a state failed to remove a bribe elector the state would not have violated a constitutional provision per se it would have violated the duty as a sound overseer  presidential elections and to even after the electors have been chosen appoint an argument it does seem certainly are cases involving the power to appoint an executive officials or the president do say that it carries with it the power to remove but that has always been with respect to the inferior officers and the electors here it seems to me they are not inferior in any way to the state legislature they carry rights as appointees carrying out federal responsibilities as well so i don't see how those authorities support your position iran or we disagree the constitution clearly gives states planetary power over electors and as acting as a steward of the presidential election system that means if electors were to take a bribe for example or not to show up it's on the state to do address that point if you only left this to congress in the final instance that would mean that all congress could do is remove the elector not have it be counted what the states can do is replace an elector and make sure that the state has the constitution the authorized votes in the electoral college as such the states play a critical role and that role includes the power to remove thank you general justice thomas thank you mr chief justice gen if you start your brief questioning standing in this case  past cases involving removal from an elected office like cal for example involve an official with the salary what's unique here is there's no salary or other personal injury what's at issue here is the institutional rol itself and as this court made clear in smith and a line of cases an individual doesn't have standing to challenge institutional role that he or she may believe is unconstitutional so in the removal case at what point do you think there would be an injury and justice thomas in so far as someone gives up a salary like in humphrey's executor you have injury in fact if it is a honorary  with pleasure justice thomas our view is that doctrine doesn't really fit here under the constitution it's the role of the states as stewards overseeing the presidential election process the typical federal function case like mccauley versus maryland you're worried about a state interfering with a federal official here as this court is made clear and multiple times electors are not federal officials they are appointed by and oversee and transmit the vote of the states your honor the chaos that could result from upholding the ten circuits ruling is one that could occasion a constitutional crisis as was noted by my colleague from washington if states have no ability to remove bribe electors and all that's left is congress's ability to choose to count or not count the mere fact of bribing electors in an open enough way would knock out electors would limit who could vote and ultimately could sway the outcome of a presidential election it's the role of the states to oversee confidence in our election systems to ensure that the public's voice is heard and all of those values the integrity of our elections are at stake in this case iran or the auditor in smith believe that he suffered a stick not having to implement an unconstitutional statute and that concern of his stigma was not sufficient to give him standing i would submit the same rule holds here opinions i take it have made clear that a state isn't a person under nine hundred and eighty three dollars everybody's way that argument both sides would like us to rule but can say if someone sues a foreign country under nine hundred and eighty three dollars and a foreign country can't be a defendant under nine hundred and eighty three can the parties simply get an opinion from this court by waving the question your hon would start with justice ginsburg's opinion in the northwest airlines case where she made plain that whether or not there's a claim for relief in a statute is not a jurisdictional question what we're dealing with here both under section  immunity is strategic decisions made by our state in the course of litigation we made those decisions because we want to litigate this case on the merits we believe we have a case on the merits and standing and that's how we've chosen to proceed oh yes that is my question my question is of course you want a decision from this court but mr smith might want to decision about how the constitution applies to someone in mexico or to someone in russia i mean can the parties get that advisory decision by simply saying oh we waive all the jurisdictional problem all the non jurisdictional problem all the problems that say the statute doesn't apply just as prior this court will opt for whatever ground it chooses with respect to whether the court has to rule on this issue the answer is no this is not a jurisdictional question for us this was one of several strategic questions on what grounds  honor we don't have a history of what types of changes were made what we know is they happened all the time as professor hardaway notes in his brief for example in michigan there were electors who just didn't show up who then were placed on the day that the electoral college had to meet we haven't had a lectors who are upset about having been replaced or not counted and isn't my my question has to do with bribery and before the st two was passed more than two hundred years after the constitution was st created were there instances of an elector being bribed and if so how was it handled we don't know of any such instances your honor hayes disputed election other question is officially the same one that concerns me with respect of the positions of all the counsel in these two cases and that is limitation of any of the arguments that are being made example suppose the legislature is the hands of a political party other than the party of and they win the popular vote and  legislature simply remove all of the electors were pledged to vote for that candidate to replace them with other electors justice alito this is an important point let me st answer your question then get to a slightly different one that raises the same concern if the legislature announces the procedure in advance and gives people the right to vote and they actually decide that right the legislature cannot do the public's right to vote without violating the rights of a line of cases however if the legislature acted earlier say the prior spring to change the process to give itself the power to appoint electors not the power in the hands of the people that's the choice state legislatures could make it macpherson it was litigated whether or not a legit you could move from a winner take all to a just rating system there was a partisan motivation for that change and the court said the legislatures is that the public be told what they're voting on heard the chief justices earlier question if the public is told you are merely casting it advisory vote as opposed to a binding one that you can expect will be followed that's a different case like cases afford us your best what's the best right to vote case that stands for that principle in gray versus sanders it says the public has a right for their ballots to be counted of the constitution i would think that the power we're talking about here is is not such a power but instead was created by the constitution and the st instance so how can the th amendment support you consistent with orton thank you justice kagan what i would suggest here is a similar principle to what justice kavanagh articulated earlier justice kavanagh noted the chaos principle means if you have a close case you avoid creating chaos we would say if you have a close case you avoid intruding on federalism concerns and that's grounded and represented by the th amendment but again i thought that that was only as to the powers that the state teleprompter to the ratification of the constitution your honor as a strict matter that is what the th amendment does but there's also the interpretive principle picked up for example in gregory versus ashcroft that says when looking at intrusions on state power limits on state power given to the feds you do so lightly mr lessing ended his argument by giving a number of hypotheticals he said you know if a state can do what you're doing the state can also say enforce pledges  to vote only for candidates who have visited the state or who released their tax returns or who take a position on certain issues is that right not necessarily or honor the tax  tax returns that you have been litigated under the qualifications clause in california and the court there said that did constitute adding a qualification to be president but moreover i would note there's also an independent question about whether or not you could have a state saying we won't allow someone to be on our ballot in the state at all if they haven't done x y and z and indeed in the california case it was not in the electoral context but in the alley access to the ballot context that the issue arose and if you were lying on the interpret that as a qualification to be president particularly because the right of the states to have a system where the people could be heard is part of the original constitutional design and then again confirmed in the th amendment itself well it sort of assumes a conclusion i mean it's obviously a pretty normal understanding of what elections do but if you assume that these electors were meant to use their own discretion and the popular vote was not require and and it would be imposing a qualification your honor if you assume electors have this discretion you've assumed the answer to this case we would say they don't have that discretion at all that actually i find your assuming the answer in the exact same way aren't you what is or is not a qualification sort of depends on this case so i don't think that you can get rid of mr lessing so easily as you would like to hear on our position is that the constitution is silent on whether or not you can have a lectors representing how the public votes that is inherent in this design and thus we say what's inherent design couldn't be an additional qualification electors what would prohibit them from passing a law does for example to say that all electors have to have to vote for presidents presidential candidates who support certain positions or who have done certain things or who have visited the state and i understand your ex post argument that is states can't change the rules of the election after the election and they have to provide voters notice but if they did it well in advance  them from doing so if anything on your view you're on i'm trying to square how this fits with a popular vote system because if you give people the power to vote and they exercise the power then our argument is you count their votes when i believe you'd be getting i would then be a pre clearance process where you have to pre clear what electors could be on the ballot before people could vote on them in that i just interrupt you i'm sorry but you've indicated to be fine for people to have an advisory vote to twelve wise people who make the final decision why why couldn't you also have a system in which the people provide advice within certain parameters set by the legislature iran i think that's the same context i had in mind which is you would basically give people an advisory vote and then after the fact you have to ask no not after the fact they've been alerted prior to the fact counsel that's my hypothetical i understand your point about after the fact in advance they've been notified that there are they are free to provide advice to twelve electors whatever the number may be and their advice though is going to be bound and there are certain things that the electors have to have to because the legislature says abide by or also be removed and those are again you know as a presidential candidate of the state has he taken this or that position as he or she add limitations as long as they comply with their constitutional provisions and do those the requirement to visit a state i don't believe clearly violates any constitutional provision the tax return issue we've noted raises a qualification clause question that could be a real concern and the presidential candidate is on the ballot it's who the electors can vote for a set of qualifications problem in the states  yes it would be because if you tell actors they can only vote for pick whatever the concern would be tax returns people over fifty the concern is you could be adding a new qualification to be president and thereby disqualify in effect someone from being president who the constitution would qualify to be president about other about political positions or you say visiting the state that's permissible that condition would be permissible in your view your honor i don't see off the top of my head any other constitutional constraint that would address that issue our position is the power is planetary or exclusive as this court said macpherson the state can oversee electors and remove them if you don't follow requirements the state deems appropriate thank you counsel justice kavanagh thank you justice good morning general what is the purpose of having electors thank you for that question as kavanagh when electors are set up in the constitution is on that allows for states to make a choice electors can either vote as proxy voters on behalf of the public as we do here in colorado or they can be why not just leave it to the states as opposed to going through all these details about how the electors are supposed to operate as you know justice jackson and re looking at that history said no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated was that electors would be free agents exercise an independent nonpartisan judgment as to the people best qualified for the nation's highest offices of the and quote from justice jackson so that implies not a choice but actually a requirement that the states give this kind of independence free agent status to electors and why why go through all the details if it's if it's the way i guess what i'm asking more broadly is the text has all these details to set up a design that seems closer to what justice jackson articulated swear in potential hook is the delegation of the authority to the states by contrast to what justice jackson said james madison said the electoral college was all about giving the states authority to oversee presidential elections as they saw fit and as the majority in re noted contemporaries of the founders did indeed see electors as proxy voters on behalf of the public and that was absolutely the backdrop to the th amendment so i would also point to the t it as affectively confirming and accepting the fact that electors can be indeed most often our proxy voters not free agents why do you think the founders did not leave it up to the states to decide whether they wanted their members of congress to be iran or the constitution had a series of compromises between separating powers between the states and the federal government and between the states this was one of those compromises that was reached at the final days of the constitution convention thank you thank you counsel you have a minute to wrap up if you'd like yes mr chief justice as we've noted this case is all about state authority and on the theory of my friends i know other side states have no authority even to remove bribe electors short of a full criminal trial our founders gave the states this authority expected them to exercise it in ways that were sound that's what has been the history of our presidential elections circuit decision to be reversed thank you counsel mr harold mr chief justice and may it please the court this case is about a trade off between flexibility and rigidity is no exception if there is widely recognized fraud or bribery by the candidate no exception if there will be a title like total vote and a potentially deadlocked house no exception the laws rigid electors vote for the winner of the popular vote in the state or well there is no or your honour's that's the only option that rigidity has no place in our constitutional universe if something goes awry in vis coming election or any other the framers thought that electors could vote with discretion and the th amendment didn't change that more recently the th amendment framers when they analyze these contingencies recognized even one hundred and fifty years after the framing that electric still had discretion and electors could and should use it in the case of death of a candidate this shows that given the current system of presidential selection by an electoral college there must be times when electors and only those electors are best placed to act in the interest of country  states have a problem with the idea of an electoral college and they want to write it out and make no bones about it they haven't so far today and perhaps we would be better off for that indirect election because this monthlong multi step process of presidential selection presents some risk of instability no matter who wins this case but until we have an article five amendment the vote of real humans called presidential electors isn't going away to make sure the system we have works sensibly given the constitution we have now electors do vote by ballot they must be permitted to do so with discretion your honour's thank you counsel i'll begin by asking you the flip side of the question i asked general weiser is there anything that mr less said with which you disagree no your honor we filed an opening brief and i sign onto exactly what he said in the st hour thank you you gave a number of examples there  what are the limits to your position the limits your honor are that electors must be permitted to vote with discretion and so as your honor no it's there there is a choice there is always the possibility of bribery always the possibility of corruption and the framers considered all the possibilities and placed the ultimate selection of president in the hands of a group of presidential electors that were appointed i take your i take your answer when i ask for limits to be that they must be allowed to vote in their discretion that you don't have any limits your honor there are no limits in that voting by ballot so long as the ballot is for a person the th amendment says they must vote for a person you can if i wasn't clear that that's the situation i meant but those are really the limits of the discretion there there's great discretion in appointment there's there's you know the state can absolutely discriminate between all kinds of people and they do on the basis of political party for instance but once the vote began that vote by ballot is the electors so the electorate can decide i'm going to vote i'm going to flip a coin and however it comes out that's how i'm going to vote yes your honor that's the same discussion that s senators have representatives have congressional electors have used to our elected officials and they have that same discretion well that sounds pretty limitless to me let's say that an elector  you don't you'll be liquidated damages of a one thousand dollars and elector is selected and breaks that contract vote for the other individual even though that individual didn't  win the popular vote can that contractual commitment be enforced by the state not legally no your honor and that shouldn't be surprising because that's the same program and that applies to congressional actors who cannot sell their votes even though as a condition of participating in a primary these cases extensively in our high briefs there you can force regular voters to take pledges and oath to support a party you just can't cross that line and representatives but there's some degree of accountability for them when they vote to kill away what's the accountability here for an elector strays from what is expected there justice thomas the st of course is the selection process because they are party people and in all fifty states they're selected by the political parties from there after the vote they can be kicked out of the political party they cannot win elections they can have negative political consequences and that's the exact same thing with senators right senators do have accountability but that accountability comes six years later so if a u s senator justice thomas promises to support only low taxes and then at every opportunity raises taxes their only accountability is six years later that's the nature of political discussion and that's the discussion electors happier but there's also accountability and chamber  they are your honor there is absolutely party discretion party meetings just like any other representative body and just to to quibble slightly justice thomas with what you said in terms of removal u s senator there is no president that we have found a u s senator being removed perhaps even by an appointing governor in the case of a vacancy on the basis of a vote certainly some sort of criminal misconduct sure but not on the basis of a vote and that's rigid that you can't make changes because of the depth of the candidate but i mean on your side as the chief justice alluded to you have a similar problem because the  you can't do anything about that your honor i think there is something to be done because that would be the vote for a non person you know no matter how big a fan many people are a photo bag and make the ultimate selection that hasn't changed justice thomas thank you thank you counsel justice ginsburg i don't have this and your client about rigidity because as i understand of the state's position is great flexibility as you mentioned in choosing the mode and method of appointment but the laws that they've written here the laws that were enforced against my client aka were employed are very rigid they're rigid in the sense that there are no exceptions  passed and that rigidity conflicts with the supposition that every single congress that has looked at the issue of presidential selection has assumed exist explicitly in one thousand and thirty three when the congress drafting the th amendment that's a key oversight of these laws but even down to the more modern era when congress was debating the th amendment for instance prohibiting poll taxes and noted that it needed to bar poll taxes for elections for presidential  lectors because they still exist in our system so that's the rigidity i'm talking about  there is standing justice ginsburg i will say there's a very small economic injury we've asked for one dollar a nominal damages mr baka gave up an additional five dollars in salary i'd just like to correct the record for attorney general why that said there's no salary colorado statute attorney general wiser said which is that it's and indeed also he did the court's opinion just last week in assigning smith's case when the court said that the court's job is to resolve disputes as framed by the parties and so the only way that the court should look at that issue is if it's  enough matters so that it has to come before us because it's not jurisdictional they interpret the statutes differently they do whatever they have to do what are we supposed to do about the your honor i don't think this case implement something like that because this case is one that courts surely could hear it was initially brought individually against the secretary of state through a compromise that involved the plaintiffs giving up the right to attorney fees and other accommodation it was somewhat reframe i order to be brought against the department of state and as the th circuit said i'll just point the court to pad at fifty three to seventy with a really all of a look at that one other question you didn't mention in terms of accountability what i take it why didn't you is that congress doesn't so is that a power that the congress has to make certain that the faithless elector does not cause trouble justice briar your view about what i would like your true answer to that your honor just so i understand that really votes the three that were rejected by congress were actually faithful they were electors project to create but i mean doesn't congress is tower there's three u s c for a vote to be regularly given the congress i do think possibly has the power to reject a faithless vote under certain circumstances but we know it has never done so that those  constitution to mean what it means regardless of the consequences i'm interested in at least in understanding what the consequences of your position would be we are told by experts on elections that the consequences would be potentially chaotic i'm thinking in particular of professor bennett's brief and there's been other ways by experts on elections that acceptance of your position would mean that after an election where the apparent outcome based on the popular vote is a small margin of victory for one candidate there would be concerted campaigns to change that result by influencing a few electors and that could be achieved by influencing just a few electors that's just one of the consequences is the fact that in most states the electors are not even listed on the ballots and therefore the voters have no way of trying to ensure that the electors who were chosen are electors who really will honor the wishes of the voters so do you really deny that this is where your argument would lead we do deny a justice alito and here i think past is prologue attorney general wiser in response to a prior question on the same issue noted that there had been campaigns already to affect electors you mentioned eight hundred and seventy six famously contested election of eight hundred and seventy six but in fact robert alexander a scholar of presidential electors who we cite on the last page of the reply brief and should follow alexander's research shows that there have been concerted campaigns in two thousand and sixteen in two thousand and beyond that some twenty percent of electors have contemplated switching their ballots and that one hundred percent have been contacted and greater there's a greater your honor i believe that he supported his legal discretion that electors have that we're here today arguing for and the reason is a that that's in the constitution but be that inter going back to the chaos point the center has always held the center has always held we know that eighteen states today justice alito has no such laws and the states are not about to say that there's some constitutional requirement that they implement them in fact they say the reverse removed from office your honor yes they do have some power to remove electorate just not as a removal power that interferes with the core function of voting by ballot what is the limit of their power to remove the limit of the power to remove is again that interference with the core function so if an elector does not show up to vote the states have represented it it's our view that's impossible to remove and replace that elector that's not true mere whisper of it they have to be removed for proof of it and the same thing would be true here a member of congress could not be removed from office by two thirds of without a criminal conviction  the congress certainly has power to remove but it must go through a full process that i took your honor to be asking about the sort of instantaneous you know removal eleven dollars official one single state official is going to make a decision to kick someone out based on rumor that know that you know that would be inappropriate for any sort of elected official and it's inappropriate for for elect mr harrison i read the constitution and i find that it just doesn't say anything about this subject you know that there are some hints here and there are some hints going the other way and mostly i just read it and i say the constitution is silent  what should i do and then do and why justice kagan in that case i think the original understanding would control again if we think there is clear language in the constitution i don't want to return to that but the original understanding would control because it is so clear and indeed colorado doesn't even fairly challenge it that the original expectation and then they were sorry do you mean the original understanding like prior to r is not with the pledges or the idea of party control and of having two major parties in our system yeah idea is with enforcement of the vote the idea is with what occurred here removing an elector who actually votes mr baka actually presented a vote and attempted to vote and place it in the ballot box and that was rejected that is novel justice kagan that has only happened in two thousand and sixteen despite the party control of the selection process and we do training as i said that if i think that the silence the best thing to do is leave it to the states to not impose any constitutional requirement on them your honor i would push against because i don't think their silence right especially here in the hypothetical i just if i just think that there's not enough in the same way that ray thought that there was not enough to provide an answer to the question and the role of the state still in what colorado is still in why not just leave it to them because your honor when justice kagan when you said there are all these states doing what colorado is doing it has actually never been the case that a state has done what colorado is doing that with these two hundred and twenty years of unbroken history i think that silence and so go ahead please no no you're on if you're ready to move on that fine i was going to continue making in another point that was directed to justice kagan thank you justice which counsel suppose mr baka had asked congress to count his vote and congress decided to do so would we be here yes you would your honor  there there is no mechanism for mr pocock to ask congress to count his vote under the electoral count act that the state has pointed to any mechanism other than perhaps making a phone call to a senator the same i believe collette suppose he had asked congress and let's suppose congress had agreed to count his vote that's my hypothetical would we be here if congress had counted his vote instead of the vote of the replacement elected landry the no  perhaps not because he wouldn't have lost the office will say he didn't get a chance to vote for vice president either so assuming on your honor hypothetical that he has ballots fully cast then we probably wouldn't be here ok parties why isn't that a sort of manufactured litigation that this court should should decline its should should bother with using its discretion whether to decide a case that some authority to emphasize the importance of the adversarial process and its proper uses it does justice course such and i think the arguments today in the pre show this is highly adversarial on the standing and on the merits and the discretion here is because there was a conflict in the lower courts on an important issue and the unique chance that this court has to decide this issue of presidential selection outside the very contested context of an actively fought presidential election because then your honor is talking about discretion and not jurisdiction i think it's well exercised here and again colorado doesn't contest thank you justice kavanagh thank you chief justice and good afternoon mr harold how if at all should the court growth of political parties factor analysis of this case including how the th amendment interacts with article t another of course under our case law is historical practice under cases like no canning and dames and moore and many others that we looked at historical practice as a gloss on the text what is your strongest point on why the historical practice favors you rather than say the favoring the other side doesn't cavanagh in addition to the historical practice that we've already discussed including in the exchange with justice kagan also point the court to the history of constitutional amendments that have been introduced to try and abolish the office of elector precisely to eliminate the elector discretion that everyone who was introducing the amendment assumed exists as we point out in our brief that starts in  one with no less than thomas jefferson saying hey maybe we should get rid of the office of electors they can only cause trouble and that continues in the th and th century for twenty years such amendments were introduced by thomas hart benton  congress and those amendments were not meaningful and the people who thought that we ought to eliminate elector discretion were not writing on a blank slate they were writing knowing there was a lector discretion and that would be a lot of wasted oxygen your honor briefly the court knows the intervention here was extraordinary and unprecedented and of colorado is permitted to undo the human check that has been into this system of presidential selection there really could be a chaotic outcome by contrast most electors have been free in most elections and here we are today your honor indeed electors retain legal discretion in eighteen states as i've said and a decision from this court won't change that so the question for this court is whether to approve of the state's novel intervention and it is novel and be left wondering how the state's overly rigid interpretation could go haywire and as we've discussed the case of death there are other unforseen circumstances where instead whether the court should keep faith with  system keep faith with the constitution intil amended and maintain in direct election acknowledging that both sides here both sides have a vision of presidential selection vet is imperfect but the various checks and balances and separations that are y sure you have two minutes for rebuttal thank you mr chief justice let me make three points in response and offer two closing thoughts st off on standing the payment or nonpayment of the per d m v was never before allege and any reported nonpayment is not in the record nd on nominal damages prior cases like smith and byrd did not a court standing on nominal damages alone instead focusing on whether there's an actual personal injury nd as to just as clear important point about congressional remover removal in the case of bribery it's worth noting there is a prescribe removal process for senators as justice alito noted when the case of electors there's no such process which means this court rule controls the power to remove is the incident to the power to appoint a rd it's worth noting this is the st time we've seen an elector who violated a state binding law up until now including the two thousand and sixteen election we've always seen congress defer and count votes as transmitted by the states to closing thoughts during the course of this entire litigation and this argument today my friends on the other side have failed to offer any viable theory on how to address the spectacle of a bribe elector an elector who votes for photo baggins or one who perpetrate a bait and switch on the people of her state colorado's pledge requirement addresses all such arm after over two hundred and thirty years of constitutional tradition my friends the other side would toss out our nation's state senator and model of electoral accountability in favor of a treacherous experiment we urge this court to reject this dangerous time bomb and avoid a potential constitutional crisis by reversing the th circuit judgment thank you thank you crown so the case is submitted