Ayyyeee… What’s Goodie Everyone. So I got some tea and it involves the U.S elections and the Supreme Court Ruling.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that states may require presidential electors to support the winner of the popular vote and punish or replace those who don’t, settling a disputed issue in advance of this fall’s election.

Lower courts were split on the issue, with one saying the Constitution forbids dictating how such officials cast their ballots.

Both red and blue states urged the justices to settle the matter in advance of the “white hot” glare of the 2020 election. They said they feared a handful of independent minded members of the electoral college deciding the next president.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit went the other way. It said Colorado’s control ended with deciding how electors from the state are chosen. From there, the Constitution envisions that the 538 electors are free to vote their minds in deciding who should be president and vice president.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, and settled the disputed “faithless elector” issue before it affected the coming presidential contest.

The court considered cases from the state of Washington and Colorado with Washington moved to fine Peter Bret Chiafalo and two others $1,000 after they voted for Colin Powell when the electoral college convened after the 2016 election. They had pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s popular vote.

All but two states have winner take all systems, and 32, plus the District of Columbia, require those running to be electors to pledge to support the state’s winner. The states vary as to penalties, if any, for breaking their word or whether electors with a change of heart may be replaced.

The cases were Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca.