Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

Day.8    Putting  those  aside,  faithless  votes  represent  just
one-half of one percent of the total.  Still, the Electors coun-
ter, Congress has counted all those votes.  See Brief for Pe-
titioners 46.  But because faithless votes have never come 
close to affecting an outcome, only one has ever been chal-
lenged.  True enough, that one was counted.  But the Elec-
tors  cannot  rest  a  claim  of  historical  tradition  on  one 
counted vote in over 200 years.  And anyway, the State ap-
pointing that elector had no law requiring a pledge or oth-
erwise barring his use of discretion.  Congress’s deference
to a state decision to tolerate a faithless vote is no ground 
for rejecting a state decision to penalize one. 

III 

The  Electors’  constitutional  claim  has  neither  text  nor 
history on its side.  Article II and the Twelfth Amendment 
give  States  broad  power  over  electors,  and  give  electors
themselves no rights.  Early in our history, States decided
to tie electors to the presidential choices of others, whether
legislatures or citizens.  Except that legislatures no longer 
play a role, that practice has continued for more than 200 
years.  Among the devices States have long used to achieve
their object are pledge laws, designed to impress on electors 
their role as agents of others.  A State follows in the same 
tradition if, like Washington, it chooses to sanction an elec-
tor for breaching his promise.  Then too, the State instructs 

—————— 

8 The Electors contend that elector discretion is needed to deal with the 
possibility that a future presidential candidate will die between Election 
Day and the Electoral College vote.  See Reply Brief 20–22.  We do not 
dismiss how much turmoil such an event could cause.  In recognition of 
that fact, some States have drafted their pledge laws to give electors vot-
ing discretion when their candidate has died.  See, e.g., Cal. Elec. Code 
Ann. §6906; Ind. Code §3–10–4–1.7.  And we suspect that in such a case, 
States without a specific provision would also release electors from their 
pledge.  Still, we note that because the situation is not before us, nothing
in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a
deceased candidate.