Constitutional Provision(s) at Issue: Article II, Section 1; 12th Amendment |
Download Graphic Orgainizer |
Facts
This case deals with the issue of so-called faithless electors in the 2016 presidential election. In each political party’s state primary, a slate of electors is chosen who pledge that if their party’s nominee wins the general election in that state, they will cast their vote in the Electoral College for that nominee. In the 2016 presidential election, Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the state of Colorado. An elector in that state had, therefore, pledged to cast his vote for her but instead attempted to vote for then-Ohio Governor John Kasich (a Republican). The state removed that elector and replaced him with someone who then voted for Clinton. (The case Chiafalo v. Washington deals with faithless electors, too, and has oral arguments scheduled for the same day.)
Questions Presented Before the Court
Does a faithless elector who is prevented from casting his or her electoral vote have standing to sue their state? And if so, do Article II and the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibit a state from requiring electors to vote in accordance with the state’s popular vote?
Legal Vocabulary
faithless elector (n.) – an elector in a state who votes in the Electoral College contrary to his or her pledge to vote with that state’s popular vote. (Click here for more details.)
standing (n.) – the capacity of a party (person or group) to bring a lawsuit against another party. (Click here for more details.)
Additional Resoures
Click here for CRF’s two-lesson series on the Electoral College. Activities include a civic scenario in which students make recommendations on what (if anything) should be done about this controversial institution, and a Civil Conversation on the question of slavery’s role in the creation of the Electoral College.
