In a brief filed on Wednesday, Attorney General Phil Weiser and Secretary of State Jena Griswold argued the U.S. Supreme Court should find that Colorado is justified in binding presidential electors to the winner of the state’s popular vote because ruling otherwise would enable “fraud” and run counter to the public’s historical understanding of the electors’ role.

The case stemmed from the 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton won the highest percentage of votes in Colorado. Micheal Baca, one of the Democratic electors, attempted to cast his ballot in the Electoral College for a different candidate, in violation of state law. Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams replaced him with another elector, who voted for Clinton. Two other electors, Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, had previously sought to prevent the state from enforcing its law. Ultimately, there were 10 such “faithless electors” nationwide in the 2016 election.

A federal district court found that the electors lacked standing to sue and that the Twelfth Amendment, which regulates the selection of the president and vice president, gave states the authority to bind their electors. However, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the decision.

Weiser and Griswold argued that Micheal Baca was a state official materially unaffected by the law that governed his duties, and therefore he lacked standing to challenge it. The fact that he was removed as an elector, which the Colorado brief deemed a “a general diminution of political power,” was not sufficient.

“The Electoral College emerged as a compromise reflecting the need for a national process for selecting a president that accommodated state authority,” the brief continued. “The electors’ specific role, by contrast, and whether States could exercise control over them, was ‘never discussed.'”

The officials argued that because states had the power to appoint electors, they had the power to remove them. Even though there was no mechanism to do so, logically a method “must be available to oust an elector who, for example, engages in rebellion against his or her State or the United States.”

The public has a “long-held understanding,” according to Colorado, that the winner of the statewide vote should receive that state’s electoral votes. Enforcing an elector’s support for the candidate who won their state is necessary to prevent “a fraud on the public and, even worse, the specter of a bribed elector being able to cast a corrupted ballot.”

In November, 22 states filed a brief in support of Colorado, including some that had similar laws and others that were concerned about the need to bind electors if the practice continued in future elections.

The case is Colorado Department of State v. Baca, et al. The Supreme Court delayed its oral arguments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Weiser intends to present the state’s argument on April 28, unless there is a schedule change.