What happens in the faithless elector cases?

[politicallefty]

This is worthy of a bump in light of oral arguments having been a couple days ago.

My first thoughts before delving too much into it was that the states should probably prevail. I listened to a good portion of the oral arguments and I definitely maintain that position.

I'm not sure what the vote will be or who will write (the latter typically depends on monthly sittings, but who knows what that means right now).

I think it's worth considering Ray v. Blair from 1952, which upheld the right of states to require a pledge from electors to vote a certain way. That gives this Court some basis on which to build upon and further establish what I would think to be is a near plenary power of the states. I think the Court should rule for the states, but with a minor limitation. Any limitations on what the electors can do can only be limited at the time of appointment. In our current paradigm, the time of appointment would be Election Day. In other words, the states could not change the rules if they do not like the result of the election. The rules must be established before appointment. So, in the case of Chiafalo v. Washington, Washington should win.

The case in Baca is a little less obvious considering it involves actual replacement of any rogue electors versus a penalty for violating a pledge after the fact. The oral arguments mentioned potential removal for bribery and whatnot. As I said, this one isn't as obvious, but I think so long as the procedures are established before the fact, the state should have the authority to replace an elector that does not follow said established procedures (and so long as the procedures followed were set prior to appointment/election).