As already noted, on April 20, a U.S. District Court in California said the Democratic presidential elector from 2016 who had sued could not prevail because the case is moot. Koller v Brown, n.d., 5:16cv-7069. Even though the U.S. District Court was plainly mistaken, the elector, Vinz Koller, did not appeal, and it is not too late for him to appeal.

The U.S. District Court said election law constitutional cases are moot unless the plaintiff intends to run in a future election. This is contrary to what the U.S. Supreme Court said about mootness in constitutional election laws cases in Moore v Ogilvie in 1969. The plaintiffs in that case were unpledged presidential electors in Illinois who had sued to overturn the county distribution requirement for statewide independent petitions. They had no intent in running in 1972, but the U.S. Supreme Court still said the case was not moot. This was made clear in Richardson v Ramirez, in which the Court discussed Moore v Ogilvie and said that the Moore plaintiffs did not intend to run in a future election.

The “disobedient” presidential electors who had sued Colorado and Minnesota over their right to vote for any candidate in the electoral college are more determined that Mr. Koller, and are appealing to U.S. Courts of Appeals.