Term: 2019
Docket: 19-518
Colorado Dept. Of State v. Baca
- Pro
19-518 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE V. BACA DECISION BELOW: 935 F.3d 887 QUESTION PRESENTED: Like most States, Colorado requires its presidential electors to follow the will of its voters when casting their Electoral College ballots for President. In the 2016 Electoral College, one of Colorado's electors violated Colorado law by attempting to cast his presidential ballot for a candidate other than the one he pledged to vote for. Colorado removed him as an elector, declined to accept his ballot, and replaced him with an alternate elector who properly cast her ballot for the winner of the State's popular vote, consistent with Colorado law. The removed elector later sued Colorado for nominal damages. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing State from casting an Electoral College ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing State because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion. 2. Does Article II or the Twelfth Amendment forbid a State from requiring its presidential electors to follow the State's popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-1173 CONSOLIDATED WITH 19-465 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. ORDER OF MARCH 10, 2020: THIS CASE IS NO LONGER CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 19-465, AND ONE HOUR IS ALLOTTED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS ORDER. PRESS RELEASE OF APRIL 3, 2020 IN KEEPING WITH PUBLIC HEALTH GUIDANCE IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, THE COURT WILL POSTPONE THE ORAL ARGUMENTS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THE APRIL SESSION. PRESS RELEASE OF APRIL 13, 2020 RESCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. THE JUSTICES AND COUNSEL WILL ALL PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. CERT. GRANTED 1/17/2020
In the case of Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over whether members of the Electoral College are required to cast their votes in accordance with their state's popular vote results or if they can exercise discretion and vote for another candidate. The issue arose during the 2016 Presidential Election when Micheal Baca, a Colorado elector, attempted to cast his electoral vote for John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton who had won Colorado's popular vote. His action was part of an unsuccessful strategy by some electors nationwide to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president by voting for alternative candidates regardless of their state’s election outcome. The Secretary of State removed Baca as an elector and discarded his vote which led him to file suit claiming that this violated his constitutional rights under Article II and the Twelfth Amendment which he argued gave him discretion in casting his electoral ballot. However, in July 2020, SCOTUS ruled unanimously against Baca stating that states have the power to require its presidential electors to back the victor in statewide popular-vote elections.
In the dissenting opinion for Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that the Constitution's text and original understanding do not support a state's power to remove or punish an elector for exercising discretion in voting. They contended that while states have the power to appoint electors in any manner they choose, once appointed these electors become federal officers performing a federal function independent of state control. The majority’s decision allowing states to interfere with electoral votes post-appointment was seen as inconsistent with this view and potentially harmful to our constitutional structure by centralizing power at a national level rather than preserving it within individual states.
