Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election

established by the Constitution of the United States provides that state courts are bound by federal law and the Constitution in the event that state law were to contradict them. Only four times in American history (1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016) has a presidential candidate lost the popular vote but achieved the Electoral College majority, thereby assuming the presidency; in the last three such cases, no candidate polled an absolute majority of the popular vote. In the event that no one receives a majority of the Electoral College vote, the selection of the president is made by the House of Representatives under certain constitutional guidelines. In 1824 the candidate with the highest popular vote (Andrew Jackson) also had the most electoral votes but, crucially, did not have a majority in the Electoral College. Despite John Quincy Adams having lost the popular vote and having received fewer electoral votes than Andrew Jackson, the House of Representatives chose Adams to become President. ==Number of intended faithless electors==

In the 2016 election cycle, the threshold of 270 electoral votes to win the presidency and vice presidency outright could have been thwarted by garnering a minimum of at least 12 percent of all Republican electors to become faithless, that is, 37 of 306 Republican electors. However, garnering the requisite number of faithless electors was thought to be extremely unlikely, as electors tend to be dignitaries with long histories in their respective party, and have historically voted for their pledged candidate over 99% of the time. On November 16, 2016, journalist Bill Lichtenstein published an article in the Huffington Post, detailing the plans by presidential elector Micheal Baca to seek to derail Trump's ascent to the presidency by convincing Democratic and Republican presidential electors to vote for a more moderate candidate on December 19, 2016, when the Electoral College voted. Lichtenstein's article soon went viral, and on December 5, 2016, several members of the electoral college, seven from the Democratic Party Although it is difficult to ascertain how many more electors, especially Republican electors, considered becoming faithless and voting for a Republican other than Trump, it was reported that at least an additional 20 Republican electors had already accepted free-of-charge anonymous legal counsel and support provided for Republican faithless electors to assist them in voting against Trump. The Republican National Committee mounted an expansive whip operation to ensure that all those electors selected to vote for the Republican nominee indeed did so. On December 14, multiple Republican members of the electoral college stated under condition of anonymity that they were being coerced with "threats of political reprisal", adding "that the Donald Trump campaign is putting pressure on Republican electors to vote for him based on ... future political outcomes based on whether they vote for Donald Trump or not." == Public outreach to electors ==

On December 14, the Unite For America campaign released a video published on YouTube and other media addressed directly to Republican electors urging that each of them individually, plus 36 of their colleagues (at least 37 Republican electors in total), vote for a Republican other than Donald Trump for president. The video featured numerous public figures, including Debra Messing, Martin Sheen, and Bob Odenkirk, urging Republican electors to prevent a Trump presidency, expressing several times the message: "I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton". In electing an alternative Republican, the featured speakers ask the elector to become an "American hero" by using the elector's constitutional "authority" to give "service and patriotism to the American people" through a vote of "conscience". On December 11, Democratic US Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut wrote on Twitter that Trump is "completely unhinged" and "the Electoral College must do what it was designed for." Himes said he made the plea to the Electoral College because Trump refused to say that the Russians hacked Democrats during the election. ==Legal counsel and advocacy==

On December 6, 2016, the Hamilton Electors' website was established to advocate the election of an alternative Republican as the next president of the United States. Lawrence Lessig, a prominent Harvard University law professor (and former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination himself), announced that he was "teaming with a California-based law firm to offer legal support for any members of the Electoral College seeking to oppose President-elect Donald Trump." Lessig said the counsel and support (namely Laurence Tribe, who has argued before the Supreme Court 36 times) would be provided anonymously. ==Litigation prior to the vote==

In states with laws against faithlessness, depending on the particular state voting faithlessly despite the laws may incur anything from no prescribed punishment, to simple removal and replacement of the intended faithless elector, to fines and the potential imprisonment of the elector. Democratic electors filed lawsuits in Colorado, Washington, and California, but federal judges declined to issue injunctions blocking these laws, and there was insufficient time to appeal to the Supreme Court before the electoral college vote. However, in Baca v. Hickenlooper a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declared in a footnote that any attempt to remove electors "after voting has begun" would be "unlikely in light of the text of the Twelfth Amendment." While at the time of the election the constitutionality of faithless electors had not yet been addressed by the Supreme Court, in Ray v. Blair, the court had ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate in order to be certified as electors, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. Nevertheless, the court had also written: In his dissent, Justice Robert H. Jackson, joined by Justice William O. Douglas, wrote: ==Recorded faithless electors==

Validated Invalidated Recipients of votes ;President Colin Powell official Secretary of State photo.jpg|Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, 3 votes Bernie Sanders.jpg|Senator Bernie Sanders, 1 vote (plus 2 invalidated) Governor John Kasich.jpg|Governor John Kasich, 1 vote (plus 1 invalidated) Faith Spotted Eagle (cropped).png|Activist Faith Spotted Eagle, 1 vote Ron Paul, official Congressional photo portrait, 2007.jpg|Former representative Ron Paul, 1 vote ;Vice President Elizabeth Warren by Gage Skidmore.jpg|Senator Elizabeth Warren, 2 votes Maria Cantwell, official portrait, 110th Congress.jpg|Senator Maria Cantwell, 1 vote Susan Collins official Senate photo.jpg|Senator Susan Collins, 1 vote Carly Fiorina by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg|Business executive Carly Fiorina, 1 vote Winona duke dream reborn.png|Economist Winona LaDuke, 1 vote File:Tulsi Gabbard, official portrait, 113th Congress (cropped 3).jpg|Representative Tulsi Gabbard (1 invalidated vote) == Legal challenges ==

The four faithless electors from Washington were each fined $1,000 for breaking their pledge. Three of the electors appealed the fines, which were upheld by the Washington Supreme Court in May 2019 by an 8–1 vote. On October 7, 2019, the electors unsuccessfully appealed their case, Chiafalo v. Washington, to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Colorado, three of the electors filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The case, Baca v. Colorado Department of State, was dismissed by Judge Wiley Young Daniel on April 10, 2018. The electors filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit and oral arguments were held on January 24, 2019. On August 20, 2019, a three-judge panel ruled 2–1 in favor of the electors. On October 16, 2019, Colorado appealed the 10th Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both the Washington and Colorado cases in January 2020; while initially consolidated, Justice Sotomayor's recusal in the Colorado case due to a prior relationship with one of the respondents kept the cases separate. Oral arguments in both cases had been scheduled for April, but were subsequently postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was then announced that oral arguments would be held via phone, which occurred on May 13, 2020. On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states may require an elector to vote for the candidate to whom they had pledged, and a fine imposed for an elector for breaching a pledge is not unlawful. ==See also==