Electoral College and State Authority

In 2016, some Washington state electors did not vote according to the popular vote, leading to fines and a Supreme Court case. The Court addressed whether states can bind electors to the popular vote and enforce such laws. Electors argued for independence based on the Electoral College's original intent, while Washington argued for state control due to constitutional silence. The Court ruled states can bind electors, emphasizing federalism and state authority. Justice Kagan noted the framers' intent was not enforceable, focusing on constitutional text.

What was the consequence for the electors in Washington state who did not vote according to the popular vote in 2016?

• They were fined $1,000.

• They were removed from their positions.

• They were given a warning.

• They were allowed to vote again.

What was one of the main questions the Supreme Court considered regarding state electors?

• Whether electors can be chosen by the public.

• Whether states can require electors to vote according to the popular vote.

• Whether electors can vote for any candidate they choose.

• Whether electors can be fined for not voting.

What did the electors argue was the original intent of the Electoral College?

• To prevent any state from having too much power.

• To ensure a direct election of the president.

• To allow electors to exercise independent judgment.

• To follow the popular vote strictly.

Which part of the Constitution did the electors reference to support their argument for independence?

• Article II

• The Tenth Amendment

• The First Amendment

• The Preamble

What was Washington state's argument regarding the Constitution and binding electors?

• The Constitution mandates electors to follow the popular vote.

• The Constitution requires electors to vote independently.

• The Constitution is silent on binding electors, allowing states to decide.

• The Constitution explicitly prohibits binding electors.

Which Supreme Court precedent did Washington state use to support its argument?

• Roe v. Wade

• Brown v. Board of Education

• Marbury v. Madison

• Ray v. Blair

What was the Supreme Court's decision regarding state authority over electors?

• Electors have complete independence.

• Electors must be chosen by the federal government.

• States can bind electors and enforce pledges.

• States cannot bind electors.

How does the Supreme Court's decision promote federalism?

• By requiring a uniform national voting system.

• By centralizing electoral decisions at the federal level.

• By allowing states to regulate how electors vote.

• By removing state authority over electors.

What did Justice Kagan acknowledge about the framers' intentions?

• They intended for electors to be chosen by the judiciary.

• They intended for electors to follow the popular vote.

• They intended for electors to have independent discretion.

• They intended for electors to be appointed by Congress.

What does the decision reaffirm about state authority?

• States have no authority over electors.

• States have limited authority over electors.

• States have broad authority to regulate electors.

• States must follow federal guidelines for electors.