Requiring State Presidential Electors to Follow the Popular Vote (Chiafalo v. Washington)

At a Glance

CLC is advocating in favor of state laws requiring that presidential electors follow the popular vote in their state.

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
Ethics
About This Case/Action

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide if a presidential elector is free under the Constitution to “vote their conscience” and cast an Electoral College ballot for anyone, ignoring the popular vote of that state.

Electors are the people who physically cast their state’s electoral votes. Colorado and Washington both have laws requiring electors to pledge their votes to the popular vote winner and have empowered state officials to enforce that pledge. The electors have challenged the states’ authority to do this.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), in partnership with Issue One and Sidley, filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on April 8, 2020, arguing that the state laws should be upheld and that the sole function of the presidential electors should be to cast, certify and transmit the vote of the state for president and vice president of the U.S.

The Faithless Elector

In most states, members of the Electoral College are pledged to vote for the candidate that wins the majority of the votes in their state. When an elector fails to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state, they break faith with the state’s voters.

So far, these votes have not changed the outcome of the election, so the issue has not yet been front and center in voters’ minds.

What’s at Stake

The outcome of this case could put the outcome of a presidential election into the hands of a few anonymous individuals, without legal guidelines on how much money can be spent to influence them.

If the court agrees with the electors brining the lawsuit, the entire Electoral College system will be upended just months before voters go to the polls in the General Election. A ruling to “unbind” presidential electors from their home state voters would create new legal loopholes at the worst possible time.

Numerous federal laws require elected officials and policy makers to follow financial ethics and transparency rules. According to CLC’s Adav Noti, writing for The Atlantic, these rules seek to ensure that officials act in the public’s interest rather than for their own financial advantage.

Presidential electors, however, have never been considered true elected officials or policy makers, so these laws do not currently cover them. So there would be nothing stopping wealthy special interests from creating a bidding war to influence electors to cast their vote in favor of their preferred candidate.

For example, electors could legally accept contributions worth millions of dollars in connection with their official duties, and the public would never know. Allowing faithless electors would invite corruption that current federal law is not equipped to prevent.

Unbinding electors would also require states to reconstruct their presidential election procedures, sometimes at great cost. States would need to urgently reconsider every aspect of nominating and selecting their presidential electors.

The legitimacy of American democracy demands that Americans go to the polls with the confidence that their vote will count and that their election system will be free from corruption. However far from perfect the current system may be, the chaos of an unbound Electoral College would be much worse.

Plaintiffs

Peter Bret Chiafalo, Levi Jennet Guerra, and Esther Virginia John

Defendant

State of Washington 

Judge: Ruling at Upcoming Trial Will Apply to Hundreds of Thousands of Florida Voters Seeking Rights Restoration

Date
Body

TALLAHASSEE, FL – A federal judge today confirmed that any decision he issues in Florida’s rights restoration case, Jones v. DeSantis, would apply to all Floridians who would otherwise be eligible for rights restoration, but for their ability to pay off their fines and fees.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) represents three individual plaintiffs with past felony convictions in the case, which challenges a Florida law requiring payment of fines and fees as a condition for rights restoration. To ensure that any final ruling in the case would extend to otherwise eligible voters beyond the individual plaintiffs in the case, CLC brought the lawsuit as a class action, and filed a motion for class certification last fall. Judge Robert Hinkle granted the motion today. The case goes to trial on April 27.

“Today’s class certification makes clear that whatever the outcome of the trial, it will apply broadly to hundreds of thousands of voters seeking rights restoration in Florida,” said Danielle Lang, co-director of voting rights and redistricting at CLC. “Roughly 80% of Florida voters whose rights were restored by Amendment 4 have outstanding fines and fees associated with their sentencing. The Florida law conditioning rights restoration on payment of restitution, fines, and fees penalizes citizens who face financial hardship while only re-enfranchising those who can afford to pay. Inability to pay should never be a barrier to the ballot box, and the state must provide a uniform process that gives all Floridians with past felony convictions access to voting, without discriminating on the basis of wealth.”

Judge Hinkle temporarily blocked enforcement of the Florida fines and fees law, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision.  Both the district court’s order and the 11th Circuit’s opinion make clear that it is Florida’s responsibility to make sure that state and county election officials comply with the constitutional principles articulated by both courts. The state, however, continues to insist that these rulings apply only to the individual Floridians who are participating in this lawsuit. Today’s ruling ensures that practice must come to an end.

CLC and our partners are currently planning to conduct the trial remotely.

Read the stories of our individual clients Diane Sherrill, Lee Hoffman and Bonnie Raysor.

Issues
Voting and Elections

After Supreme Court Decision, States Must Prepare for Surge of Absentee Ballots in November

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – On Monday night, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision declining to extend the deadline for absentee voting in today’s elections in Wisconsin by six days.

Paul Smith, Vice President of Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released the following statement:

“The chaotic struggle over the Wisconsin primary that broke out yesterday sent a chilling message about ballot access issues in November. States should heed this message and make preparations now to assure that we will not have similar problems with the general election this fall. Every state needs to have a way for citizens to vote by mail if they choose to do so, while also allowing in-person voting spread over a number of days. All of these arrangements need to be clearly explained to voters well in advance of the election. And just as importantly, states need to get ready to deal with a surge of mailed ballots. That is no small task, but there is no alternative.”

Due to rising health concerns, an unprecedented number of Wisconsin voters – recently encouraged by public officials – have turned to voting absentee. This has put a strain on election clerks that need to send out ballots, creating a backlog. News reports indicate tens of thousands of voters will not receive absentee ballots in time to send them back.

Issues
Voting and Elections
Subscribe to