Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

6 

CHIAFALO v. WASHINGTON 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

Court  construes  Wash.  Rev.  Code  §29A.56.340  (2016)  as
“enforc[ing] a pledge.”  See ante, at 10; see also ante, at 1– 
2, 7–9, 17.  But §29A.56.340 did not involve the enforcement 
of a pledge or relate to the appointment process at all.1  It 
simply  regulated  electors’  votes,  unconnected  to  the  ap-
pointment process.

To understand the Court’s error, a brief summary of its
theory is necessary.  According to the Court, Article II, §1, 
grants States “the power to appoint” Presidential electors 
“in  such  Manner  as  the  Legislature  thereof  may  direct.” 
Ante, at 9.   That “power to appoint an elector,” the Court
states, “includes power to condition his appointment.”  Ibid. 
The  power  to  condition  appointment  in  turn  allows  the
State to insist that an “elector pledge to cast his Electoral
College ballot for his party’s presidential nominee.”  Ante, 
at  9–10.    And  finally,  “the  State’s  appointment  power  . . . 
enables  the  enforcement  of  a  pledge.”    Ante,  at  10.    The  
Court’s theory is entirely premised on the State exercising 
a power to appoint. 

Assuming the Court has correctly interpreted Article II, 
§1,  there  are  certain  circumstances  in  which  this  theory
could  stand.  Some  States  expressly  require  electors  to 
pledge to vote for a party nominee as a condition of appoint-
ment  and  then  impose  a  penalty  if  electors  violate  that 
pledge.  For example, under Oklahoma law, “[e]very party
nominee for Presidential Elector shall subscribe to an oath, 
stating that said nominee, if elected, will cast a ballot for 
the persons nominated for the offices of President and Vice
President by the nominee’s party.”  Okla. Stat., Tit. 26, §10– 
102 (2019).  Oklahoma then penalizes the violation of that 
oath: “Any Presidential Elector who violates his oath as a 
Presidential Elector shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, 

—————— 

1 In  2019,  Washington  revised  its  laws  addressing  Presidential  elec-
tors, eliminating the provision imposing a civil penalty on faithless elec-
tors.  See 2019 Wash. Sess. Laws pp. 755–758.