Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

8 

CHIAFALO v. WASHINGTON 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

refuses to perform it.”  §18002.3  These laws penalize elec-
tors  for  their  faithless  votes.  But  they  do  not  attempt  to
regulate the votes of electors through the appointment pro-
cess.  In fact, these laws have nothing to do with elector ap-
pointment.

The Court recognizes the distinction between these two
types  of  laws,  i.e.,  laws  enforcing  appointment  conditions
and laws that regulate electors outside of the appointment 
process.  See  ante,  at  5  (recognizing  that  some  States
“merely  impose  [a]  duty  by  law”).   But  it  claims  this  is 
merely  a  “small  semantic  differenc[e].”  Ante,  at  10,  n. 6. 
Far from being semantic, the difference between the power 
to impose a “condition of appointment” and the power to im-
pose  restrictions  on  electors  that  have nothing  to  do  with 
appointment  is  fundamental  to  the  Court’s  textual  argu-
ment.  The  Court’s  entire  analysis  is  premised  on  States’ 
purported  Article  II  “power  to  appoint  an  elector”  and  “to
condition his appointment.”  Ante, at 9.  The Court does not, 
and cannot, claim that the text of Article II provides States
power over anything other than the appointment of electors. 
See ante, at 9–10. 

Here, the challenged Washington law did not enforce any 
appointment condition.  It provided that “[a]ny elector who
votes for a person or persons not nominated by the party of 
which he or she is an elector is subject to a civil penalty of
up to one thousand dollars.”  Wash. Rev. Code §29A.56.340
(2016).  Unlike the laws of Oklahoma, Indiana, Minnesota 
and  the  other  States  discussed  above,  a  violation  of 
§29A.56.340 was not predicated on violating a pledge or any 

—————— 

3 Michigan  likewise  does  not  regulate  electors  through  the  appoint-
ment process.  Under Michigan law, the failure of an already appointed
elector  to  resign  “signifies”  that  the  elector  “consent[s]  to  serve  and  to 
cast his vote for the candidates for president and vice-president appear-
ing on the Michigan ballot of the political party which nominated him.” 
Mich. Comp. Laws §168.47 (2008).  Attempting to cast a vote for another
candidate “constitutes a resignation from the office of elector.”  Ibid.