Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

In the 20th century, many States enacted statutes meant 
to  guarantee  that  outcome—that  is,  to  prohibit  so-called
faithless voting.  Rather than just assume that party-picked 
electors would vote for their party’s winning nominee, those 
States insist that they do so.  As of now, 32 States and the 
District  of  Columbia  have  such  statutes  on  their  books. 
They are typically called pledge laws because most demand 
that electors take a formal oath or pledge to cast their ballot
for their party’s presidential (and vice presidential) candi-
date.  Others merely impose that duty by law.  Either way, 
the  statutes  work  to  ensure  that  the  electors  vote  for  the 
candidate who got the most statewide votes in the presiden-
tial election. 

Most relevant here, States began about 60 years ago to
back up their pledge laws with some kind of sanction.  By
now, 15 States have such a system.2  Almost all of them im-
mediately remove a faithless elector from his position, sub-
stituting an alternate whose vote the State reports instead.
A  few  States  impose  a  monetary  fine  on  any  elector  who 
flouts his pledge. 

Washington  is  one  of  the  15  States  with  a  sanctions-

—————— 
congressional district.  See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21–A, §802 (2006); 
Neb. Rev. Stat. §32–710 (2016).  So, for example, if the Republican can-
didate  wins  the  popular  vote  in  Nebraska  as  a  whole  but  loses  to  the 
Democratic candidate in one of the State’s three congressional districts,
the Republican will get four electors and the Democrat will get one.  Here 
too, though, the States use party slates to pick the electors, in order to
reflect the relevant popular preferences (whether in the State or in an
individual district). 

2 Ariz.  Rev.  Stat.  Ann.  §16–212  (2019  Cum.  Supp.);  Cal.  Elec.  Code 
Ann. §§6906, 18002 (West 2019); Colo. Rev. Stat. §1–4–304 (2019); Ind. 
Code §3–10–4–9 (2019); Mich. Comp. Laws §168.47 (2008); Minn. Stat. 
§§208.43, 208.46 (2020 Cum. Supp.); Mont. Code Ann. §§13–25–304, 13– 
25–307  (2019);  Neb.  Rev.  Stat.  §§32–713,  32–714;  Nev.  Rev.  Stat. 
§§298.045, 298.075 (2017); N. M. Stat. Ann. §1–15–9 (Supp. 2011); N. C. 
Gen. Stat. Ann. §163–212 (2019); Okla. Stat., Tit. 26, §§10–102, 10–109 
(2019);  S.  C.  Code  Ann.  §7–19–80  (2018);  Utah  Code  §20A–13–304 
(2020); Wash. Rev. Code §§29A.56.084, 29A.56.090 (2019).