Do read the cogent, level-headed and — I predict — ultimately prevailing view of at least five US Supreme Court Justices, as just filed by Colorado.

…States have the power to enforce the U.S. Constitution, which is “supreme Law of the Land,” U.S. Const. art. VI, and “as much the law of the several states as are the laws passed by their legislatures,” Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729, 734 (2009). Trump cites no constitutional provision stripping states of the power to enforce constitutional qualifications for the Presidency. See U.S. Const. amend. X. To the contrary, states’ authority to do so falls squarely within their broad power to regulate presidential elections.

The Electors Clause provides: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” for the election of the President and Vice President. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. This clause gives the states “far-reaching authority” to run presidential elections, “absent some other constitutional constraint.” Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324 (2020); see also id. at 2334 (Thomas, J., concurring) (locating similar authority in states’ Tenth Amendment reserved power); McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (1892) (Electors Clause “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector).

Under the Electors Clause, state legislatures can (and historically did) dispense with presidential elections and appoint electors directly. Chiafalo, 140 S. Ct. at 2321. Similarly, a state’s power to “appoint an elector (in any manner) includes the power to condition his appointment — that is, to say what the elector must do for the appointment to take effect.” Id. at 2324. States may thus reject electors who refuse to pledge that they will vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote. Id. Just the same, states may reject electors pledged to candidates who are constitutionally barred from holding office.

This Court has also repeatedly upheld states’ interests in developing ballot access rules. To ensure that “order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes,” states have developed “comprehensive” election codes regulating the “selection and qualification of candidates.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). “States certainly have an interest in protecting the integrity, fairness, and efficiency of their ballots and election processes as means for electing public officials.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 364 (1997). And “a State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies.” Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972)….