Ian Millhiser, a prominent author and legal expert, has this essay at Vox about the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court hearing in the presidential elector cases from Washington and Colorado.

His analysis is flawed because he says that in 1952,. the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Ray v Blair that states could require candidates for presidential elector to take an oath that they would vote for the presidential candidate of their party if they were elected.  This is not true.  Ray v Blair only decided that the Democratic Party of Alabama could bar candidates from their primary unless they took such an oath.  Back then, the Alabama Democratic Party chose its presidential elector candidates in a primary.  No state currently does that.  In all states, presidential elector candidates are nominated by their own party’s state convention or other state meeting (except that in Pennsylvania, the nominees for president choose their own presidential elector candidates).

In 1952 in Alabama, the people taking the oath were not yet presidential electors.  They weren’t even nominees for presidential elector.  They were only individuals running in a party primary, hoping to win the primary and then become candidates for presidential elector.  Ray v Blair was a decision about the rights of political parties to control who gets on their own primary ballot, not a decision about whether states can tell presidential electors what to do.