Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 

No. 19–465.  Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020 

When Americans cast ballots for presidential candidates, their votes ac-
tually  go  toward  selecting  members  of  the  Electoral  College,  whom
each  State  appoints  based  on  the  popular  returns.    The  States  have 
devised mechanisms to ensure that the electors they appoint vote for 
the presidential candidate their citizens have preferred.  With two par-
tial exceptions, every State appoints a slate of electors selected by the
political party whose candidate has won the State’s popular vote.  Most 
States  also  compel  electors  to  pledge  to  support  the  nominee  of  that 
party.  Relevant here, 15 States back up their pledge laws with some 
kind of sanction.  Almost all of these States immediately remove a so-
called  “faithless  elector”  from  his  position,  substituting  an  alternate
whose vote the State reports instead.  A few States impose a monetary
fine on any elector who flouts his pledge. 

Three Washington electors, Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther 
John (the Electors), violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton 
in the 2016 presidential election.  In response, the State fined the Elec-
tors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same can-
didate  its  voters  had.    The  Electors  challenged  their  fines  in  state 
court,  arguing  that  the  Constitution  gives  members  of  the  Electoral 
College the right to vote however they please.  The Washington Supe-
rior Court rejected that claim, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, 
relying  on  Ray  v.  Blair,  343  U. S.  214.    In  Ray,  this  Court  upheld  a
pledge requirement—though one without a penalty to back it up.  Ray
held that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and our 
Nation’s history, id., at 225–230; but it reserved the question whether 
a State can enforce that requirement through legal sanctions.   

Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nom-

inee—and the state voters’ choice—for President.  Pp. 8–18.

(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in