October Term 2019 · Docket 19-465

Can states bind electors to vote for their party candidate?

the sides that brought the case seek to strike down state laws that bind electors. the opposing sides defend those binding laws.

Official caption
Chiafalo v. Washington
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    L. Lawrence Lessig argued states cannot control elector votes.

    Chief Justice Roberts asked if a pledge alone violates the Constitution.

    Chief Justice Roberts asked if a one-dollar fine changes the analysis.

    Justice Thomas asked if the federal function argument relies on elector discretion.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests state power over elector voting.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on May 13, 2020.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down state binding laws.

the opposing sides want the Court to uphold state binding laws.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue states lack power to control elector votes.

the opposing sides argue states may set conditions for elector appointment.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if a pledge without a fine violates the Constitution.

Justice Thomas asked if the federal function argument depends on elector discretion.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the scope of state control over presidential elections.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON