The decision was made based on two cases — and one in Washington State.

Delivering Justice Elena Kagan wrote��that nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevents states from punishing so-called faithless electors — members of the Electoral College who don’t vote in accordance with the people of their state. Justice Sonia Sotomayor from the Colorado decision because of her friendship with Colorado elector Polly Baca.

Kagan wrote that states may instruct their electors “that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”

She invoked the Broadway musical “Hamilton” and the TV show “Veep” as she explained the history of electoral procedures.

Colorado is one of 32 states that have laws on their books that bind electors to their party’s candidates. Some states will sanction electors who don’t, removing them from their positions — an action the Supreme Court ruled states could take.

The decision comes four months before the next presidential election. Agreeing with Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, justices worried about the potential for bribery of electors and chaos amid an election if they allowed electors to vote for whomever they wanted. Weiser called it a constitutional crisis.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold said the decision was a “crisis averted” at a news conference Monday: “It really was an aversion of a democracy doomsday, and I think it’s great that we’ve gotten ahead of it.”

Colorado’s case concerned several electors — whom supporters refer to as “Hamilton electors” — who tried to vote for Republican John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton — the state’s winner — in 2016. It was an effort to keep Donald Trump from becoming president. One of the electors, Micheal Baca (no relation to Polly Baca), was removed and replaced because of his vote. Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich who also wanted to vote for Kasich ultimately voted for Clinton.

Attorneys for the electors argued the state had no power to sanction members of the Electoral College, who are free agents and can vote for whomever they choose. When the case was argued before justices May 13, two questioned whether Micheal Baca could have voted for Frodo Baggins or a giraffe if he wanted to.

The high court’s decision Monday overturns a 2019 ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which said Colorado acted outside the bounds of its constitutional power when it punished faithless electors. The 10th Circuit ruled electors are federal officers outside the jurisdiction of state laws.

On Monday, Micheal Baca said he was disappointed.

“If electors are bound and electors don’t have a say, then why do we have the electors?” he said. “What purpose do we serve?”

Still, Baca said he’s grateful that a decision has been made so Americans can now seriously consider whether to get rid of the Electoral College.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis called Monday’s Supreme Court ruling an important one for the integrity of democracy.

“Until our country can fully reform our outdated electoral college rules, at least the vote of the people will be reflected by our electors,” he said in a written statement.

Polly Baca, who was elected to serve for a fourth time on the Electoral College in 2020, said the case was educational even though it didn’t achieve the result the electors sought.

“We wanted people to understand that they don’t vote for president of the United States, which is ironic,” Baca said. “We’re the largest, most historic democracy in the world, and yet we don’t elect our chief executive officer or the president of the United States.”

Attorneys for the presidential electors announced the launch of a campaign Monday to reform the Electoral College through their nonprofit Equal Citizens.

“During my argument in the Supreme Court, it became very clear that no one thinks the system is foolproof: not the states, not the Supreme Court, and certainly not the people,” Jason Harrow, executive director of Equal Citizens, said in a written statement. “… So we need to start the hard work of having a non-partisan conversation about how to fix it. The health of our republic depends on it.”

Meanwhile, Baca is putting her support behind the National Popular Vote Compact, which will be on the Colorado ballot in November. It would bind the state’s electors to vote for whomever wins the popular vote in the country, rather than the state.

“I’m passionate about believing that whomever gets the most votes ought to win the election,” she said.

Reporter Justin Wingerter contributed to this story.

The debate, via teleconference, pitted Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser against Jason Harrow, an attorney for so-called “faithless electors” — members of the Electoral College from Colorado who, in 2016, did not vote for Hillary Clinton, the presidential candidate who won the most votes here. One of the electors was punished.

Weiser defended a state law that punishes faithless electors and urged justices to overturn a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that such punishments are unconstitutional. Harrow asked the Supreme Court to uphold the 10th Circuit ruling and argued that members of the Electoral College are free agents with almost limitless discretion to vote for whomever they choose. Several justices were skeptical.

“An elector who has promised to vote for the winning candidate could suddenly say, ‘You know, I’m going to vote for Frodo Baggins. I really like Frodo Baggins.’ And you’re saying, under your system, you can’t do anything about that,” said Justice Clarence Thomas, referring to a “Lord of the Rings” protagonist.

“Your honor, I think there is something to be done,” Harrow responded, “because that would be a vote for a non-person, no matter how big a fan many people are of Frodo Baggins.”

Chief Justice John Roberts said Harrow’s view of elector discretion “sounds limitless,” with the only exception being that an elector can’t “vote for a giraffe.” Harrow said states can oversee the appointment of electors, but not their votes.

“So, the elector can decide, I am going to vote — I am going to flip a coin and however it comes out, that����ap how I’m going to vote?” Roberts asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Harrow told him, comparing electors to elected officials. “That����ap the same discretion that U.S. senators have, representatives have.”

The U.S. Constitution grants states the power to appoint members of the Electoral College. The question before the Supreme Court is whether that same power also grants states the authority to punish electors who stray from their state’s popular vote.

Both sides warned of electoral chaos if they lose the case. Harrow said there “could be a chaotic outcome” if electors cannot elect who they see fit, as they have throughout American history. Weiser said Harrow and faithless electors want to engage in a “treacherous experiment” and risk a constitutional crisis.

“My friends on the other side have failed to offer any viable theory on how to address the spectacle of a bribed elector, an elector who votes for Frodo Baggins, or one who would perpetrate a bait-and-switch on the people of the state,” the Democratic attorney general told justices.

The hypothetical scenario of bribed electors came up often during Wednesday’s arguments. Harrow, when asked whether an elector suspected of bribery would be allowed to cast a ballot, said yes, if the elector had not yet been convicted.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, the state’s chief election officer and a proponent of punishing faithless electors, said in an interview after the morning arguments that she was “very pleasantly surprised” to see justices ask about the potential bribery of electors.

“I think the focus on bribery and on the logistical chaos that a decision against the State of Colorado could create really underlines that (justices) are considering the practical effects,” said Griswold, a Democrat.

The Colorado case, known formally as Colorado Department of State v. Baca, stems from 2016, when Micheal Baca, a Colorado member of the Electoral College, attempted to vote for John Kasich, an Ohio Republican, rather than Clinton. Baca’s decision was part of a quixotic effort to lure Republican electors to a consensus choice and block Donald Trump from becoming president.

“Given the current system of presidential selection by an Electoral College, there must be times when electors — and only those electors — are best placed to act in the interest of country,” Harrow said Wednesday.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the attorneys and justices debated via teleconference, and audio of the arguments was streamed live to the public online. Weiser spoke from a nondescript conference room in downtown Denver, standing at a lectern and flanked by five top deputies, who wore masks and sat at least six feet apart.

Weiser wore a tie given to him by former Supreme Court Justice Byron White, a Colorado native whom Weiser clerked for. He drank from a large Starbucks iced tea and referenced a pocket Constitution as he spoke.

After the hour-long arguments ended, Weiser embraced his wife, Heidi Wald, who brought him a white cake with the scales of justice drawn in black icing.

The Supreme Court likely will issue an opinion in the Colorado case and another faithless electors case out of Washington state by the end of June. Both sides have urged the court to give electors guidance before November’s presidential election.

“If something goes awry in this coming election or any other, the framers (of the Constitution) thought that electors could vote with discretion,” Harrow said.

The high court will spend one hour, beginning around 9 a.m., hearing arguments in . Due to the coronavirus pandemic, attorneys will argue via teleconference and the audio will be streamed at supremecourt.gov.

Under state law, Colorado’s members of the Electoral College must cast their ballots for the presidential and vice presidential candidates who receive the most votes in Colorado. If they don’t, they can be removed and replaced. The constitutionality of that punishment is being challenged in��this case.

The case stems from 2016, when��Micheal Baca, a Colorado member of the Electoral College,��attempted to vote for��John Kasich, a Republican former governor of Ohio, rather than Democrat Hillary Clinton, whom Colorado had chosen. Baca’s decision was part of a failed and quixotic effort to lure Republican electors to a consensus choice and block Donald Trump from becoming president.

Attorney General Phil Weiser will defend Colorado’s law punishing faithless electors by arguing the U.S. Constitution grants states that power when it allows them to appoint electors “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.”

Jason Harrow, with the pro-faithless electors group Equal Citizens, will tell justices that Colorado’s law is unconstitutional because Electoral College members, like jurors in a criminal trial, cannot be forced by states to vote for a particular outcome.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Wednesday’s arguments because of a conflict of interest. She is a friend of Polly Baca, one of the faithless electors.

Four weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a closely watched case regarding so-called “faithless electors,” the Colorado Attorney General’s Office laid out its case in .

“States are authorized to oversee and remove electors to advance our democratic principles and protect our system of stable governance,” wrote Attorney General Phil Weiser‘s office.

Under state law, Colorado’s members of the Electoral College must cast their ballots for the presidential and vice presidential candidates who receive the most votes in Colorado. If they don’t, they can be removed and replaced. The constitutionality of that punishment is being challenged in .

The case stems from 2016, when Micheal Baca, a Colorado member of the Electoral College, John Kasich, a Republican former governor of Ohio, rather than Democrat Hillary Clinton, whom Colorado had chosen. Baca’s decision was part of a failed and quixotic effort to lure Republican electors to a consensus choice and block Donald Trump from becoming president.

Baca was removed from his post, a punishment��later deemed unconstitutional��by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. His attorney, Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law, has argued Electoral College voting cannot be controlled by a state government.

The state of Colorado disagrees, relying in large part on Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which allows state legislatures to appoint members of the Electoral College “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.” That language allows states to remove and punish electors, the state of Colorado claims.

“Without the state oversight that the removal principle provides, electors would be free to violate their oath, take a bribe, or cast a ballot for a constitutionally ineligible candidate. Such an outcome would deprive the states’ voters of their voice in the selection of the president,” the attorney general’s office wrote in its brief.

“Permitting the states to enforce those lawful pledges is not only constitutional but necessary to protect the true character of our nation’s democratic principles and system of stable governance.”

The case is set to be heard April 28, though it����ap unclear if the high court will meet then, due to the coronavirus pandemic. Both sides — Lessig and the state of Colorado — have urged justices to issue an opinion this year and grant clarity before the 2020 presidential election in November.

The state’s punishment of Baca, if it stands, would allow state governments to stop the Electoral College from electing candidates , not visited the state, or who support policies the state government opposes, argued the attorney, Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law.

“A state’s power to appoint electors does not grant it the power to control or remove appointees,” he wrote in .

On April 28, justices will hear arguments in two cases regarding so-called faithless electors, members of the Electoral College who do not vote in accordance with their state’s popular vote totals. In 2016, Baca crossed out the name of Hillary Clinton, Colorado’s pick for president, and wrote in John Kasich as part of a quixotic and unsuccessful effort to block Donald Trump from becoming president.

Baca was removed from his post, a punishment later deemed unconstitutional by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the state of Washington, several electors were fined for a similar maneuver, a punishment upheld by that state’s top court. Given the disconnect between the two rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases. The court could issue its opinion this summer.

The state of Colorado, represented by the Attorney General’s Office, has not yet filed its legal brief with the Supreme Court.

In his brief Monday, Lessig often cited the Constitution and American history. There were more than 180 instances of electors voting against their state’s wishes — what Lessig calls “anomalous electoral votes” — without punishment until 2016, he told the Supreme Court. In 1968, for example, an elector chosen to support Richard Nixon voted instead for George Wallace. The matter was debated in Congress and it was determined the vote for Wallace should count.

“Voting is the core act of discretion and free judgment on which our system of constitutional government depends,” , adding that Electoral College voting “may not be controlled by a state.”

Lessig compared electors to federal judges. Just as a president has the power to appoint federal judges but not the power to control their actions, states have the power to appoint electors but not control them. He also compared electors to members of a jury, who cannot be punished for convicting or acquitting.

“Presidential electors have always operated as a kind of national jury system — expected to follow instructions from the voters at large, but with unreviewable discretion not to do so,” Lessig wrote. “Until a constitutional amendment changes the process of election, that is how it must be.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser and Secretary of State Jena Griswold, the state’s top election official, see it differently. Members of the Electoral College — unelected and unaccountable — should not be able to decide a presidential election by disregarding the will of voters, they say.

In an October court filing, Weiser wrote that the Constitution allowed for the removal of electors when it granted states the power to appoint electors in whichever manner states see fit.

“By broadly empowering the states to choose the ‘manner’ in which electors are selected, the Constitution permits the states to attach conditions to their appointment,” .

The high court has set aside one hour for arguments on , which has been consolidated with a similar case out of Washington state. The court will have until late June to issue an opinion, unless it chooses to hold over the case until October, which is unlikely.

The faithless electors case centers on whether a member of the Electoral College can be forced to vote in accordance with the state’s popular vote. Michael Baca, a Democratic elector from Colorado, chose not to vote in 2016 for Hillary Clinton, whom a majority of Coloradans had chosen. He was removed from his role as a result, a punishment he argued was unconstitutional.

The 10th Circuit ruled in August that Baca could legally challenge his dismissal and that “the state’s removal of Mr. Baca and nullification of his vote were unconstitutional.” A state supreme court in Washington reached a different conclusion about a faithless elector there, leading the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.

During oral arguments, Colorado will be represented by the attorney general’s office, which believes a Colorado law punishing faithless electors is constitutional. Baca and the Washington elector are represented by Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor who believes such laws are unconstitutional.

Both sides had urged the Supreme Court to hear and decide the case before the 2020 election, fearing uncertainty if the matter is not resolved by then.

The case dates to 2016, when three Democratic Electoral College electors — instructed by state law to vote for Hillary Clinton — instead tried to vote for Republican John Kasich to prevent Donald Trump from receiving the 270 votes required to become president.

Two of the Colorado electors backed down and voted for Clinton, but a third, Micheal Baca, did not. After he was replaced by then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams, the electors filed a lawsuit challenging his removal.

The 10th Circuit ruled in August that Baca could legally challenge his dismissal and that “the state’s removal of Mr. Baca and nullification of his vote were unconstitutional.”

“We are thrilled the Supreme Court will take up our cases, and we look forward to our historic day in court,” Baca and Bret Chiafalo, a faithless elector in Washington state, said in an emailed statement Friday. Their cases have been merged by the Supreme Court. “The states had no power to penalize us merely for exercising our right to vote.”

Colorado’s attorney general asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case, noting that a state supreme court in Washington had reached a different conclusion about Chiafalo and so-called “faithless electors.” On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to do so.

“Having the U.S. Supreme Court resolve this critical question about the foundation of our democracy before the 2020 election will avoid the uncertainty, chaos, and confusion that would arise in the wake of post-election litigation,” said Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat.

Most states, Colorado included, have laws binding electors’ votes to the winner of the popular vote and some, such as Colorado, can punish faithless electors. A key question before the high court will be whether those laws are constitutional.

Weiser believes they are. Because the Constitution gives states the power to appoint electors, states also have the power to remove electors for not fulfilling their duties, he argues.

Lawyers for the electors disagree. They say the power to appoint electors does not imply a power to control them. They compare it to a governor’s power to appoint U.S. senators when there is a vacancy. There’s no corresponding power to remove them from office or control their votes.

The case — Colorado Department of State vs. Micheal Baca, et al. — will likely be heard in April and decided before the court����ap term ends in late June.

“Unelected, unaccountable presidential electors shouldn’t be allowed to decide the presidential election without regard to voters’ choices and state law,” said Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat. “When Americans vote in the presidential election, we are exercising our most fundamental right — the right to self-governance.”

The faithless electors are backed by Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor and founder of Equal Citizens. In October, Lessig said he agreed with Weiser that the Supreme Court should consider the case “before this unsettled issue causes chaos in the 2020 election or one soon after.”

“We are glad the Supreme Court has recognized the paramount importance of clearly determining the rules of the road for presidential electors for the upcoming election and all future elections,” Lessig said Friday.

Earlier versions of this report gave an incorrect spelling for Micheal Baca’s name.

The 2-1 opinion from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for so-called “faithless electors,” those who cast an Electoral College vote for a presidential candidate that is not the candidate chosen by a majority of voters in their state.

“Unlike the president����ap right to remove subordinate officers under his executive power and duty to take care that the laws and Constitution are faithfully executed, the states have no authority over the electors’ performance of their federal function to select the president and vice president of the United States,” wrote Judge Carolyn McHugh in .

The Colorado case involves three Democratic Party electors — Micheal Baca, Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich. After Colorado voted for Clinton in the 2016 race, the three were required under state law to cast their electoral votes for her but wanted to instead vote for John Kasich, a former Republican governor of Ohio, .

The scheme was part of a failed national effort to convince Republican electors to vote for Kasich and deny Trump the 270 Electoral College votes needed to become president. The Democratic electors had concerns about foreign interference in the 2016 election aiding Trump.

After voting for Kasich, Michael Baca was replaced by an elector who would vote for Clinton. That led the other two electors to cast their votes for Clinton, despite their desire to vote for Kasich. The three later sued the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

A lower court dismissed the lawsuit, finding the trio of electors lacked standing. The 10th Circuit partially reversed that decision Tuesday, ruling Michael Baca had legal grounds for challenging his dismissal, and “the state’s removal of Mr. Baca and nullification of his vote were unconstitutional.”

“This is an incredibly thoughtful decision that could advance substantially our campaign to reform the Electoral College,” said Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor and lawyer for the electors.

“We know Electoral College contests are going to be closer in the future than they have been in the past; and as they get closer and closer, even a small number of electors could change the results of an election,” Lessig said in a statement Wednesday. “Whether you think that����ap a good system or not, we believe it is critical to resolve it before it would decide an election.”

Michael Baca was dismissed by then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams, a Republican, who lost re-election last year to Jena Griswold, a Democrat. On Tuesday, Griswold said the 10th Circuit opinion was concerning.

“This court decision takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent,” Griswold said. “Our nation stands on the principle of one person, one vote. We are reviewing this decision with our attorneys, and will vigorously protect Colorado voters.”

The 10th Circuit returned the case to federal district court for further consideration. But Lessig plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and issue an opinion by the summer of 2020, before the next presidential election.

The trio contended that Williams acted unlawfully by not allowing them to vote their conscience instead of on behalf of Colorado voters when casting their presidential votes.

But��U.S. District Court Senior Judge��Wiley Y. Daniel rejected that premise, saying they were requesting he “strike down Colorado’s elector statute that codifies the historical understanding and long-standing practice of binding electors to the people’s vote, and to sanction a new system that would render the people’s vote merely advisory.”

In his 27-page ruling, Daniel added: “I reject this invitation, finding not only that plaintiffs lack standing but that their claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

The lawsuit stemmed from Democratic elector to vote for Ohio Gov. John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton during the Electoral College process in December 2016. He was removed as an elector by Williams as a result, a decision that of the debate about the Electoral College following Donald Trump’s victory. That’s when Baca and other Democratic electors�� he needed to take control of the White House.

Democratic electors Baca,��Polly Baca (unrelated to Micheal) and Robert Nemanich were plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed in August. They were backed and represented by��Equal Citizens,��an advocacy group founded by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig.

Polly Baca and Nemanich voted for Clinton, as the law requires. (Clinton won Colorado, with 48 percent of the vote to Trump’s 43 percent.)

“According to the binding court decisions, faithless electors can be removed, which preserves the votes of the nearly��3 million Coloradans who cast their ballots in the November election,” Williams said in an earlier written statement. “The only thing I asked the electors to do was follow the law.”

Jason Harrow, the chief counsel for Equal Citizens, suggested the group was looking toward challenging the ruling.

“We disagree strongly with Judge Daniels’ opinion, which ignores both binding precedent and the compelling evidence that the Framers of the Constitution intended presidential electors to be able to exercise independent judgment in casting their votes for President of the United States,” he said in a statement. “But this decision is only the first word in our case, not the last, and it’s the last that ultimately matters. On to the Court of Appeals.”

“Our objective is to affirm a constitutional principle,” Baca, ��after voting for Ohio Gov. John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton, said in a statement. “That principle is critical to our Framers’ design for electing the president. It is critically important that the courts clarify the rights of electors, so that the uncertainty that surrounded the 2016 vote does not repeat itself in the future.”

The lawsuit was announced in August by , an advocacy group founded by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, and filed��on behalf of two Democratic electors, Polly Baca (unrelated to Micheal) and Robert Nemanich.

The electors in the lawsuit have argued that��the U.S. Constitution gives presidential electors the right to vote their conscience.

“The Constitution vests in electors the choice for whom they will vote,” Lessig said in a news release Wednesday announcing Baca has joined��the lawsuit. “Subject to a single limitation specified by the Constitution, that discretion is reserved to them, and them alone. When Secretary Williams removed Micheal Baca as an elector because of his vote, Williams violated both Baca’s federal constitutional rights and a clear directive of the 10th Circuit (Court of Appeals). We will ask the federal courts to affirm the Constitution’s plan by declaring that the actions of Secretary Williams violated plaintiffs’ rights.”

Lessig and��Denver lawyer Jason Wesoky are representing the electors in the case. They are seeking $1 in damages.

The lawsuit is the to Colorado’s electoral rules . Those rules require presidential electors to vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote. Clinton bested Trump in Colorado during last year’s election.

The Electoral College process took on new importance — and drama — after Trump’s victory because a group of Democratic electors had sought to band together with Republicans to deny Trump the 270 electoral votes he needed to become president.

��but turned Colorado into an unlikely ground zero for a broader debate about the role of the Electoral College.

Polly Baca and Nemanich voted for Clinton, as the law requires. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office was forwarded Micheal Baca’s case for prosecution.

The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office has said the Equal Citizens lawsuit is without merit.