Chiafalo v. Inslee, 224 F. Supp. 3d 1140

Background

Plaintiffs P. Bret Chiafalo and Levi Guerra are Washington State presidential electors (Democratic nominees) who signed pledges to vote for their party’s presidential and vice‑presidential nominees.
Plaintiffs say they intend to cast electoral votes for candidates other than the Democratic nominees because they believe the President‑elect is unfit, and seek to coordinate with other electors to deny a majority to Trump/Pence.
Washington law requires electors to sign a pledge and authorizes a discretionary civil penalty of up to $1,000 for an elector who votes for someone other than the party’s nominees (RCW 29A.56.320, .340).
Plaintiffs challenged the statute under Article II, First, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Amendments and moved for a TRO/preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the penalty and any removal/replacement or interference with their Electoral College votes.
The State and two putative intervenors opposed relief; the district court held a hearing and denied plaintiffs’ motion, renoting intervention motions for later briefing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Washington’s statute and penalty prevent electors from voting and thus violate Article II/Twelfth	Electors have a constitutional freedom under Article II to vote as they choose; statute unlawfully binds electors	Washington’s law does not prohibit electors from voting for whom they choose; it only authorizes a discretionary civil penalty	Held: Plaintiffs’ Article II/Twelfth claim unlikely to succeed; statute does not bar votes from being cast or counted
Whether the civil‑penalty provision violates the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)	The binding statute dilutes/debases Washington electors’ votes in violation of equal protection	State: statute preserves integrity of election choice and does not bind voters; broad state authority over appointment and regulation of electors	Held: Fourteenth Amendment challenge unlikely to succeed
Whether casting an electoral vote implicates First Amendment rights such that the penalty is an unconstitutional burden	Electors’ voting is protected political speech/choice; penalty chills that speech	State: electors perform a ministerial/state function; First Amendment lesser or inapplicable; even if applicable, the penalty is a minimal burden justified by state interests	Held: Court unlikely to find First Amendment protection for elector votes; even if protected, plaintiffs unlikely to prevail under balancing test
Whether plaintiffs face irreparable harm justifying preliminary injunctive relief	Threat of $1,000 fine and removal/being prevented from voting will irreparably chill First Amendment rights and deprive them of unique voting opportunity	State: monetary penalty is speculative and remediable by damages; no evidence of imminent enforcement or removal; votes will be counted in Congress regardless	Held: Irreparable harm not shown (monetary, speculative), so preliminary injunction denied

Key Cases Cited

Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (Sup. Ct. 1952) (upheld requirement that electors sign pledges and treated electors as constrained by state appointment rules)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (balancing test for burdens on voting rights; weigh character/magnitude of injury against state interests)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (standards for preliminary injunctions)
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions/slide scale test for injunctive relief)
Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002) (preliminary injunction standards in First Amendment context)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (First Amendment protection limited for public‑employees performing official duties)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (states’ plenary authority to regulate appointment of electors discussed)
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1892) (state legislature’s broad power over appointment of electors)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (Sup. Ct. 1968) (state authority to regulate voting and protect integrity of elections)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (framework for balancing burdens on voting rights against state interests)