October Term 2019 · Docket 19-518
Can states remove electors who break their pledge?
Colorado argues it can remove electors who vote against their pledge. Baca argues this power is unconstitutional.
Verified source milestones
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
General Weiser argued states can remove bribed or rebellious electors.
Mr. Harrow argued state rules are too rigid and costly.
chief_justice_roberts_asked_about_relatives_of_legislators_as_electors.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 12-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 52-6 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 52-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 20-30 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 20-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 16-14 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 16-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 14-20 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 14-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 38-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 38-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 54-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 54-28
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests state power over presidential electors. Colorado claims it can remove electors who break their pledge. Baca claims this violates the Constitution. The Court must decide if states hold this removal authority.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 16-14 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 16-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-14
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on May 13, 2020.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-24
What each side wants
Colorado wants the power to remove electors who break their pledge.
Baca wants the Court to strike down the state removal rule.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 16-14 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 16-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-14
What each side says
Colorado argues states have plenary authority to remove electors who betray the people.
Baca argues state rules are too rigid and lack necessary exceptions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 16-14 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 16-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-14
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if Baca disagrees with Washington's arguments.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if electors must be relatives of legislators.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 12-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 52-6 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 52-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 20-30 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 20-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 14-20 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 14-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 38-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 38-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 54-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 54-28
Why it matters
This dispute defines state control over presidential elections. It determines if states can enforce elector pledges. The outcome shapes the balance between state authority and federal constitutional limits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 16-14 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 16-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-14
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 12-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 52-6 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 52-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 20-30 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 20-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 14-20 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 14-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 38-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 38-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 54-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 54-28
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 16-14 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 16-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 16-14 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 16-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-14
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.