Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–465 
_________________ 

PETER B. CHIAFALO, LEVI JENNET GUERRA, 
AND ESTHER VIRGINIA JOHN, PETITIONERS 
v. WASHINGTON 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT 
OF WASHINGTON 

[July 6, 2020]

 JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Every four years, millions of Americans cast a ballot for 
a presidential candidate.  Their votes, though, actually go
toward  selecting  members  of  the  Electoral  College,  whom
each State appoints based on the popular returns.  Those 
few “electors” then choose the President. 

The States have devised mechanisms to ensure that the 
electors  they  appoint  vote  for  the  presidential  candidate 
their citizens have preferred.  With two partial exceptions, 
every State appoints a slate of electors selected by the po-
litical party whose candidate has won the State’s popular 
vote.  Most States also compel electors to pledge in advance 
to  support  the  nominee  of  that  party.    This  Court  upheld
such a pledge requirement decades ago, rejecting the argu-
ment that the Constitution “demands absolute freedom for 
the elector to vote his own choice.”  Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 
214, 228 (1952).

Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an
elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other