Law Professor Jeffrey Abramson has this interesting article in Emory Law Journal, comparing presidential electors to jurors.  He notes that jurors are asked to pledge that they will follow the judge’s instructions as to the relevant law.  But if jurors return a verdict that contradicts the judge’s understanding of the law, we do not punish the jurors.

The article talks about a time long ago in England when jurors were punished by a lower court judge, but then a higher English court reversed their convictions.

The article could have been better if, when it talked about Ray v Blair, a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court opinion about presidential electors, it explained that the case involved a pledge before a candidate could get on the Alabama Democratic primary ballot.  Back then the Alabama Democratic Party chose its presidential elector candidates in a primary.  No state currently does that.  The article probably will lead most readers to assume Alabama had a pledge for actual presidential electors, not just candidates for presidential elector from one particular party.

Also the article says that all 39 electoral votes received by Strom Thurmond in 1948 were from electors who violated their pledge.  Actually Strom Thurmond won the popular vote in the states that produced those presidential electors.  He got more popular votes than Harry Truman in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi.  And in Alabama, Truman wasn’t even on the ballot, so obviously Thurmond won.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.