Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

across the Nation cast faithless votes—the most in a cen-
tury, but well short of the goal.  Candidate Trump became 
President Trump.  And, more to the point here, the State
fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges
to support the same candidate its voters had. 

The Electors challenged their fines in state court, arguing 
that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral Col-
lege the right to vote however they please.  The Washington 
Superior Court rejected the Electors’ claim in an oral deci-
sion,  and  the  State’s  Supreme  Court  affirmed  that  judg-
ment.  See In re Guerra, 193 Wash. 2d 380, 441 P. 3d 807 
(2019).  The court relied heavily on our decision in Ray v. 
Blair upholding a pledge requirement—though one without 
a penalty to back it up.  See 193 Wash. 2d, at 393–399, 441 
P. 3d, at 813–816.  In the state court’s view, Washington’s
penalty provision made no difference.  Article II of the Con-
stitution,  the  court  noted,  grants  broad  authority  to  the 
States to appoint electors, and  so to impose conditions on 
their appointments.  See id., at 393, 395, 441 P. 3d, at 813, 
814.  And nothing in the document “suggests that electors 
have discretion to cast their votes without limitation or re-
striction by the state legislature.”  Id., at 396, 441 P. 3d, at 
814. 

A few months later, the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in a 
case involving another faithless elector.  See Baca v. Colo-
rado Dept. of State, 935 F. 3d 887 (2019).  The Circuit Court 
held  that  Colorado  could  not  remove  the  elector,  as  its 
pledge  law  directs,  because  the  Constitution  “provide[s] 
presidential electors the right to cast a vote” for President
“with discretion.”  Id., at 955. 

We granted certiorari to resolve the split.  589 U. S. ___ 
(2020).  We  now  affirm  the  Washington  Supreme  Court’s
judgment that a State may enforce its pledge law against 
an elector.