'Consequences Could Be Chaotic': Supreme Court Considers Arguments About Faithless Electors

WASHINGTON (CBS/AP) - The Supreme Court listened to arguments Wednesday about a voting issue in Colorado that could have important consequences for the 2020 presidential election: faithless electors. Can a state require electors to vote for the candidate who won their popular vote? Colorado does, but this case could change that.

Michael Baca was an elector for Colorado in 2016, when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and he wanted to vote for someone else. Baca was part of a group trying to block Donald Trump's election by voting for a moderate compromise candidate -- then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich. His ballot was voided and he sued the state.

Wednesday morning, Baca's attorney and Attorney General Phil Weiser made opposing arguments on the phone to the Supreme Court.

So-called faithless electors have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a contest with a razor-thin margin.

Justices invoked fears of bribery and chaos, suggesting they think states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.

"The consequences could be chaotic," said Justice Samuel Alito. "When there's an election with a small margin of victory, there would be a concerted campaign to change the vote of a few electors."

"Maybe the best thing to do is leave it to the states," said Justice Elena Kagan.

Justice Sonia Sotomayer is recused from the case because she is friends with one of the original respondents.

A ruling is expected by June.

(© Copyright 2020 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)