We have faithless electors.
Bottom line: "A state may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee--and the state voters' choice--for President."
It is by Kagan. The vote is basically unanimous.
Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh join her opinion.
Thomas concurs in the judgment; Gorsuch joins that opinion in part.
They ruled in Washington and then decided Colorado as a per curium reversal.
This is Chiafalo, by the way.
It is a very Kagan-like introduction that sets out the whole story. Americans vote for a presidential candidate, but their votes actually choose members of the electoral college, who are appointed based on the popular returns and then choose the president.
"Most States," Kagan writes, "compel electors to pledge in advance to support the nominee of" the party who wins the popular vote.
"Today we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State's popular vote. We hold that a State may do so."
Wow, it's a pretty short opinion.
"The Electors' constitutional claim has neither text nor history on its side," Kagan writes.
Thomas agrees with the result, but disagrees with the idea that the states' power derives from Article II of the Constitution. "In my view," he writes, "the Constitution is silent on States' authority to bind electors in voting. I would resolve this case by simply recognizing that '[a]ll powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State.'"
We appear to be done for the day, opinion-wise. The Court has not said anything yet about the next opinion day or days. There are five cases left that have not been decided - so this could really go either way, with one more day or two.
I'm sorry that we aren't able to address everyone's comments or questions. When I looked at our viewer count at one point, we had almost 14,000 watchers, and the questions and comments are coming in faster than we could read them, much less respond to all of them.
Okay, folks, I am signing off now to get to work on my story on the faithless electors. Thanks so much to everyone who joined us -- from all over the globe! -- today. We appreciate your being here and the expertise that you bring to this party. I'd hoped that if I hung on for a few more minutes we might get word about the next opinion day, but no dice. As soon as we hear anything, we'll tweet and put up an editor's note on SCOTUSblog. Until then, take care and stay well.
If opinions were being announced in the courtroom, we would learn the next day for opinions either from Marshal Pamela Talkin or, on the penultimate day, from the chief justice. But now we just have to sit tight and wait for news of the next opinion day.
OK, folks, I am going to sign off and get back to Disney Plus. There's a fascinating documentary series on Imagineering that I started watching. We will do this again ... soon! Stay tuned for details.
I’ll join Mark and Amy signing off. Thanks and see you on the next opinion day.
Thanks so much for joining, everyone. Coverage of today's opinions is coming from Amy and Professor Amanda Shanor. Five decisions to go: two regarding subpoenas for the president's tax returns and other financial records, two regarding the religion clauses and one on whether much of eastern Oklahoma is a Native American reservation. No word yet on whether we'll have one last opinion day or more, but we'll let you know as soon as we hear, and will be back to live blog as usual. Stay safe!
Submit Event
