This is, um, interesting:

But last week, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upset the conventional understanding by ruling the electors have a “constitutional right” to vote as they wish for president, even if state law requires them to abide by the people’s choice.

Tenth Circuit (Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Oklahoma) has ruled that the States can’t force electors to vote for the winner of the statewide vote. Which, from a technical standpoint, makes sense — we’re technically voting for electors not the president/vice-president. But that’s not really how most understand the elector system.

“The definitions of elector, vote and ballot have a common theme: They all imply the right to make a choice or voice an individual opinion. We therefore agree with Mr. Baca that the use of these terms supports a determination that the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose,” [Judge Carolyn McHugh] said in Baca vs. Colorado. “The text of the Constitution makes clear that the states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with the presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president or vice president candidates of their choice.”

This likely is going to the Supreme Court because there’s a ruling from the Washington Supreme Court saying that electors can be bound by the voters.