Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 23

2 

CHIAFALO v. WASHINGTON 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

The only provision in the Constitution that arguably ad-
dresses a State’s power over Presidential electors is Clause
2 of Article II, §1.  That Clause provides, in relevant part, 
that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Leg-
islature  thereof  may  direct,  a  Number  of  Electors.”    As  I 
have  previously  explained,  this  language  “imposes  an  af-
firmative obligation on the States” to establish the manner 
for appointing electors.  U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 864 
(dissenting opinion).  By using the term “shall,” “the Clause 
expressly requires action by the States.”  Id., at 862 (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted); see also Maine Community 
Health Options v. United States, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) 
(slip op., at 12) (“The first sign that the statute imposed an
obligation is its mandatory language: ‘shall’ ”); Lexecon Inc. 
v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U. S. 26, 35 
(1998) (recognizing that “ ‘shall’ [n]ormally creates an obli-
gation”).  This obligation to provide the manner of appoint-
ing electors does not expressly delegate power to States; it
simply imposes an affirmative duty.  See U. S. Term Limits, 
supra, at 862–863 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). 

B 
In a somewhat cursory analysis, the Court concludes that 
the States’ duty to appoint electors “in such Manner as the 
Legislature thereof may direct,” Art. II, §1, cl. 2, provides
an express grant of “power to appoint an elector.”  Ante, at 
9.  As explained above, this interpretation erroneously con-
flates the imposition of a duty with the granting of a power. 
But even setting that issue aside, I cannot agree with the 
Court’s analysis.  The Court appears to misinterpret Article
II, §1, by overreading its language as authorizing the broad 
power to impose and enforce substantive conditions on ap-
pointment.  The  Court  then  misconstrues  the  State  of 
Washington’s law as enforcing a condition of appointment.