In re Guerra
441 P.3d 807
Wash.2019Background
- Washington law (RCW 29A.56.320/.340) requires presidential electors to pledge to vote for their party's nominees and authorizes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for voting otherwise.
- Appellants (Washington Democratic electors nominated in 2016) cast their Electoral College ballots for candidates other than the pledged Democratic nominees; Washington fined each $1,000.
- Appellants challenged the fines as violating Article II, §1, the Twelfth Amendment, and the First Amendment; administrative review and the Thurston County Superior Court upheld the fines.
- The Washington Supreme Court heard a direct review appeal and considered whether state-imposed penalties impermissibly interfere with electors’ federal function or their free speech/vote rights.
- The majority held the state law falls within the state’s plenary power to determine the manner of appointing electors and does not violate the Constitution or the First Amendment; a single justice dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state may fine electors for not voting as pledged (Article II/Twelfth Amendment) | Electors: casting ballots is a federal function; states cannot interfere with federal functions; electors intended to exercise independent discretion | State: Article II gives states plenary authority to appoint electors and set conditions; pledges and sanctions fall within that authority | Held: State may impose the fine; it falls within the states' appointment power and does not impermissibly interfere with a federal function |
| Whether the Twelfth Amendment guarantees electors unfettered discretion to vote | Electors: Twelfth Amendment and founding history imply independent judgment by electors | State: Twelfth Amendment does not prohibit states from conditioning appointment; historical practice supports state-imposed pledges | Held: Twelfth Amendment does not guarantee absolute elector discretion; Ray v. Blair supports state authority to require pledges |
| Whether the fine violates the First Amendment (expressive/vote interests) | Electors: voting is expressive conduct; penalizing their vote is viewpoint/state suppression | State: Electors act by state authority performing a state-delegated function; Garcetti and Carrigan limit First Amendment protection for official acts | Held: No First Amendment violation; electors act under state authority and have no personal First Amendment right to cast a state-appointed vote contrary to state conditions |
| Whether federal supremacy or analogous precedent precludes state regulation here (e.g., McCulloch-type interference) | Electors: precedents show states may not frustrate federal functions or powers | State: Cases cited involved interference with exclusive federal powers; here Constitution explicitly leaves appointment manner to states | Held: McCulloch-type preemption inapplicable; appointment authority is expressly delegated to states, so state regulation here is permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534 (1934) (recognizes electors perform a federal function while also noting states’ appointment power)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (states may not exercise power that destroys federal functions)
- Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) (upheld state requirement that electors pledge to support party nominees)
- McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) (states have plenary authority over manner of appointing electors)
- In re Green, 134 U.S. 377 (1890) (describes electors’ role as casting and transmitting the State’s vote)
- Nevada Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011) (legislator’s official vote is not personal First Amendment speech)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment)