Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

CHIAFALO v. WASHINGTON 

Opinion of the Court 

backed pledge law designed to keep the State’s electors in 
line with its voting citizens.  As all States now do, Washing-
ton  requires  political  parties  fielding  presidential  candi-
dates to nominate a slate of electors.  See Wash. Rev. Code 
§29A.56.320(1).  On Election Day, the State gives voters a
See 
ballot  listing  only  the  candidates  themselves. 
§29A.56.320(2).  When  the  vote  comes  in,  Washington
moves toward appointing the electors chosen by the party
whose candidate won the statewide count.  See ibid.  But 
before the appointment can go into effect, each elector must
“execute [a] pledge” agreeing to “mark [her] ballots” for the 
presidential (and vice presidential) candidate of the party 
nominating her.  §29A.56.084.  And the elector must comply 
with that pledge, or else face a sanction.  At the time rele-
vant here, the punishment was a civil fine of up to $1,000.
See §29A.56.340 (2016).3 

This  case  involves  three  Washington  electors  who  vio-
lated their pledges in the 2016 presidential election.  That 
year, Washington’s voters chose Hillary Clinton over Don-
ald Trump for President.  The State thus appointed as its
electors the nominees of the Washington State Democratic
Party.  Among those Democratic electors were petitioners
Peter  Chiafalo,  Levi  Guerra,  and  Esther  John  (the  Elec-
tors).  All  three  pledged  to  support  Hillary  Clinton  in  the 
Electoral  College.  But  as  that  vote  approached,  they  de-
cided to cast their ballots for someone else.  The three hoped 
they  could  encourage  other  electors—particularly  those
from States Donald Trump had carried—to follow their ex-
ample.  The idea was to deprive him of a majority of elec-
toral votes and throw the election into the House of Repre-
sentatives.  So the three Electors voted for Colin Powell for 
President.  But  their  effort  failed.    Only  seven  electors 

—————— 

3 Since the events in this case, Washington has repealed the fine.  It 
now enforces pledges only by removing and replacing faithless electors. 
See Wash. Rev. Code §29A.56.090(3) (2019).