This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Colorado Department of State, the case concerns whether a state may remove an elector who is bribed, rebels, or votes contrary to a binding pledge.
According to Colorado Department of State, the Constitution authorizes states to use their plenary authority to remove such electors.
Background and question before the Court
Chief Justice Roberts asked what the limits are on state power to replace electors.
What each side argues
Petitioner – Colorado Department of State
According to Colorado Department of State, the Constitution authorizes states to remove a bribed elector, one who engages in rebellion, or one who votes contrary to a binding pledge.
According to Colorado Department of State, upholding the Tenth Circuit’s ruling could create chaos and a constitutional crisis by preventing states from removing bribed electors, potentially swaying a presidential election.
What happened at oral argument
Jason Harrow presented oral argument on behalf of the respondents.
General Philip J. Weiser presented a rebuttal argument on behalf of the petitioner.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Colorado Department of State, the ability of states to remove corrupt electors could affect the integrity of presidential elections and prevent a constitutional crisis.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- f93da8abd4a8584838ba-r1-ab96a973146271a6.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.