Mobile users: Click here to go to the YouTube link

Attorney General Phil Weiser will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday that Colorado should be able to bind a member of the Electoral College to choose the presidential candidate who won the state’s popular vote.

The case, Colorado Department of State v. Baca, stems from the 2016 presidential election when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Colorado. One of the Democratic electors, Micheal Baca, attempted to cast his vote for a different candidate, but then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams removed and replaced him. State law binds its Electoral College members to vote for the statewide winner.

A federal district court found that the Constitution afforded Colorado the ability to regulate its electors, but an appellate court reversed that ruling.

“The decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals allows unaccountable electors to decide a presidential election without regard to voters’ choices and state law,” Secretary of State Jena Griswold said. “Our nation needs the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve th­is critical question before the 2020 election to avoid uncertainty, chaos and confusion.”

The case will be Weiser’s first appearance before the High Court, although he was previously a law clerk for Justices Byron R. White and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Colorado’s position is supported by both the state Republican and Democratic parties in Colorado, the Republican National Committee, and nearly every state plus the District of Columbia.

The brief from Baca argues that the Electoral College functions as a “national jury system,” in which electors should follow the instructions of a majority of voters, but have the discretion not to do so. “Electors exercise a ‘federal function’ when they vote for President, and a federal function may not be interfered with by a state,” Baca wrote.

Weiser will argue that states should have the ability to exercise authority over electors, and that there is a common understanding that the winner of a state’s popular vote should similarly take the electoral votes. To not mandate that result could bring about “a fraud on the public and, even worse, the specter of a bribed elector being able to cast a corrupted ballot.”

The Court consolidated the Baca case with another, Chiafalo v. Washington, concerning a similar scenario that arose in the state of Washington during the 2016 election.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court is holding arguments by audio call for the first time in its history. The broadcast, occurring at 8 a.m. Mountain time, will be available through C-SPAN, the Associated Press or at  www.supremecourt.gov.