There’s a minor revolution brewing in the electoral college, the arcane 228-year-old institution that officially chooses the president. Over the past week, a small but increasingly vocal group of electors, alarmed by Donald Trump’s disregard for presidential norms, have begun calling on their colleagues to adopt their original Constitutional role as a check on the popular vote, disregarding the will of voters in their respective states and denying the billionaire businessman the 270 electoral votes he needs to assume the presidency.

On Monday night, Texas elector and longtime Republican Christopher Suprun announced in a New York Times op-ed that he would buck the voters of his state—as is his right under the Constitution as an elector—and cast his vote against Trump, possibly for Ohio governor John Kasich. “Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes,” he wrote. “Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards.”

Suprun isn’t alone. A growing group of voters calling themselves the “Hamilton Electors” are making the same case, arguing that Trump’s myriad conflicts of interest and his inexperience with international affairs effectively disqualify him from the presidency. The Clinton camp, meanwhile is remaining quiet—and rogue Democratic electors, who are hoping to sway their Republican colleagues, too, wouldn’t have it any other way. “This is something we have to do as electors,” Colorado elector Polly Baca told Politico, explaining that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is not coordinating with them, nor have her representatives expressed interest in doing so. “This is our responsibility.”

Fulfilling that responsibility, however, may be difficult. For one, even if a Republican elector wanted to vote their conscience, they would have to be from one of a handful of states where their votes are not bound to the popular vote. Such laws could be challenged in court, and electors may have a strong case, but there is little time for such appeals to make their ways through the courts before the December 19 electoral convention. Nevertheless, Baca is trying: on Tuesday, she and a fellow Colorado elector filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s binding elector laws, and requested a temporary restraining order on the law in the hopes that it would undermine similar laws in 29 other states. “Plaintiffs are entitled to exercise their judgment and free will to vote for whomever they believe to be the most qualified and fit for the offices of President and Vice President, whether those candidates are Democrats, Republicans, or from a third party,“ they wrote in a brief challenging the law’s constitutionality.

Republican electors may also be wary of coming out against Trump independently, incurring his wrath and that of his supporters. To that end, campaign finance reform advocate Lawrence Lessig recently announced the creation of The Electors Trust, which will provide free legal counsel to electors thinking about defecting—and an anonymous platform where they can discuss strategy. “It makes no sense to be elector number five who comes out against Trump. But it might make sense to be elector 38,” he told Politico. (Eight Democrats have also pledged to defect from Clinton and support a non-Trump Republican, likely Kasich.)

Even then, stopping Trump is a long shot. Unless Kasich or Clinton garner 270 electoral votes, the vote would be sent to the House of Representatives, where a Republican-held Congress would almost certainly still choose Trump, making the entire rebellion moot.

Still, the very existence of an electoral college revolt underscores the unprecedented turmoil surrounding the 2016 election, the results of which have also led to calls for the electoral college to be abolished itself. So far, Clinton has won more than 2.5 million votes more than Trump nationwide, yet she lost the electoral college on the basis of some 80,000 votes cast against her in three critical swing states. (In Michigan alone, one of the three states in her hypothetical “blue wall,” she lost by just 10,704.) Democrats, understandably, aren’t pleased by Republican efforts to recast that margin as a “mandate” for Trump. At least the controversy over the electoral college has served as a much-needed civics lesson for voters.