This archive report was first published on 7 July 2020.
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on the role of electors in the Electoral College, stating that states have the authority to limit their discretion.
Chief Justice Melville Fuller's 1892 Supreme Court decision highlighted the original intention of electors to exercise independent judgment in selecting the president. However, he noted that this expectation had been frustrated over time.
Justice Elena Kagan countered that the framers' thoughts on elector discretion were not explicitly stated in the Constitution. She argued that even if other framers shared Alexander Hamilton's outlook, it would not be enough to establish the meaning of the Constitution.
Judge Karen J. McHugh of the 10th Circuit disagreed, citing the text of the Constitution as evidence of elector independence. She pointed out that words like 'elector,' 'vote,' and 'ballot' imply the right to make a choice or voice an individual opinion.
Justice Kagan rejected this analysis, suggesting that those words do not always connote independent choice. She provided examples of individuals who may vote in accordance with their spouse's or union's wishes, yet still be considered to have voted.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined in part by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, agreed with the majority's outcome but did not adopt its reasoning. He would have relied on general principles of federalism to reach a similar result.
