Totally different issue, and the court is not being asked to rule whether electors are bound. The case the court took up will ONLY answers the question:
"Are STATE laws (now in effect in all 50 states) which bind electors to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most popular vote in that state constitutional."
That's all.
The Compact question is different, even though it also deals with electors, and if enacted would undoubtedly result in multiple states challenging it on a myriad of grounds, but the case under review now would not answer those questions. Not there yet and won't need to worry about the compact this time around.
Totally different issue, and the court is not being asked to rule whether electors are bound. The case the court took up will ONLY answers the question:
"Are STATE laws (now in effect in all 50 states) which bind electors to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most popular vote in that state constitutional." That's all.
The Compact question is different, even though it also deals with electors, and if enacted would undoubtedly result in multiple states challenging it on a myriad of grounds, but the case under review now would not answer those questions. Not there yet and won't need to worry about the compact this time around.