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 require presidential electors to vote according to the state's popular vote. The Court affirmed the decision of the Washington Supreme Court, allowing states to impose penalties on 'faithless electors.' This decision reinforces the state's authority in appointing and regulating electors within the Electoral College system.
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 electors' 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 process by which states ensure electors vote in accordance with the state's popular vote, directly relating to the electoral process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Most States also compel electors to pledge to support the nominee of that party.
-
Why Executive Power is relevant to Chiafalo v. Washington
The case indirectly involves the scope of state power in the context of presidential elections, which are part of the executive branch's function.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: A State may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee—and the state voters' choice—for President.
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—and the state voters' choice—for President.
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.
