Chiafalo v. Washington
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Chiafalo v. Washington and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Chiafalo v. Washington.
In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme Court addressed whether states can enforce laws that penalize 'faithless electors' who do not vote for the presidential candidate they pledged to support. The Court affirmed that states have the authority to impose such penalties. This decision reinforces the role of electors as representatives of their state's popular vote.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Chiafalo v. Washington.
The Court held that a State may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee and the state voters' choice for President.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Chiafalo v. Washington. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Chiafalo v. Washington
The case centers on the authority of states to enforce elector pledges, which involves the allocation of power between state and federal governments.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Article II, § 1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors 'in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.'
-
Why Voting Rights is relevant to Chiafalo v. Washington
The case involves the enforcement of elector pledges, which directly relates to the process of voting and representation in presidential elections.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A State may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee—and the state voters' choice—for President.
-
Why Executive Power is relevant to Chiafalo v. Washington
The case indirectly touches on the process of electing the President, which is a core aspect of executive power under the Constitution.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors' voting procedures.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Chiafalo v. Washington that support the summary and concepts above.
A State may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee.
Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors' voting discretion as Washington does.
The State's appointment power, barring some outside constraint, enables the enforcement of a pledge like Washington's.