The blocked legal action was part of a plan to convince Republican electors to break from Donald Trump. | AP Photo Judge deals critical blow to anti-Trump Electoral College fight

A federal judge has denied an effort by a California member of the Electoral College to block enforcement of a state law that forces him to cast his electoral vote for Hillary Clinton.

It could be the end of the line for a legal strategy that Democratic electors were employing as part of a broader plan to thwart Donald Trump’s election when the Electoral College gathers to select the president on Monday. Similar attempts to prevent such laws from being enforced were swept aside by federal judges in Colorado and Washington state. Efforts by these electors to recruit Republicans to file similar lawsuits in their own states were also unsuccessful.


The California elector, Vinz Koller, filed a lawsuit to block a law that requires him to vote for the winner of his state’s popular vote — in this case, Hillary Clinton. A legal victory, he had hoped, would undermine similar “binding” laws in 28 other states, including many Republican states that voted for Trump. That would have aided a strategy that Koller and a group of mainly Democratic electors are pushing to persuade Republican electors to break from Trump and support a more mainstream GOP alternative.

Koller's attorney has already appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, though the odds of the court overturning the district court decision ahead of Monday's Electoral College vote appear remote. In a statement, Koller said he'd continue fighting for a strategy to block Trump's election.

“We will appeal this ruling, because I cannot in good conscience help to enable the election of exactly the kind of candidate the founders were trying to protect us from when they created the Electoral College, and I and the other electors should not be forced to do so," he said. "The Constitution is very clear about the reason we have an Electoral College, and what electors are supposed to do: act as a fail-safe in the event of the election of an unqualified candidate who is subject to corruption or the influence of foreign powers."

With the legal avenue largely cut off, anti-Trump electors in states with such laws on the books risk fines or removal should they cast votes for anyone other than the statewide popular vote winner. Elector binding laws have never been enforced or tested in court before, and it’s unclear how states would respond should some electors still attempt to vote against Trump or Clinton on Monday.

The lawsuits may continue, despite the judge's decision to reject a temporary restraining order on their enforcement. Many constitutional scholars argue that binding laws can't be enforced because the founders intended the Electoral College to be a deliberative body with free choice to vote for a preferred candidate.

The 538 members of the Electoral College will meet in their respective state capitals to cast the official vote for president. Only one Republican — Chris Suprun of Texas — has publicly signaled his intention to vote against Trump. Two other Republican Trump critics — Texas’ Art Sisneros and Georgia’s Baoky Vu — say they intend to resign as electors.

