This article by Adam Liptak in the New York Times describes a split in authority between the Washington Supreme Court, which upheld a law imposing fines on “faithless electors” who vote contrary to their state’s presidential vote winner, and the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Baca v. Colorado Department of State, which held that the federal constitution presidential elector’s right to choose how he or she will vote.
I learned some interesting facts from this article: (1) that ten Electoral College members voted, or tried to vote, for candidates other than the one chosen by their parties; and (2) that a swing by ten Electoral College members would have changed the result of five presidential elections in our history.
