That decision is basically a good one BUT the devil is in its details.. more judicial wordsmiths.
I think there is some danger in it. Interestingly, Lawrence Lessig argued that the Constitution does not allow for faithless elector laws, but I think this opinion helps his project of circumventing the amendment process and abolishing the electoral college through the “national popular vote compact.” Faithless electors would essentially render the NPV compact unenforceable.
Of course, it makes me suspect that Lessig and other leftist NPV advocates were hoping that faithless electors would provide a failsafe in case the popular vote went the wrong way. After all, the electors from most of the states that enact the NPV laws vote Democrat, so the NPV laws would primarily operate to require Democrat electors to vote for a Republican candidate who won the national popular vote. If faithless elector laws were unconstitutional, then they could have their cake and eat it, too: preen that they are honoring the popular will by voting for the Democrat when the Democrat wins the popular vote, while finding an excuse to vote for the Democrat (”Russian interference,” “voter suppression,” “he’s a racist”) when the Republican wins the popular vote.
Well, current affairs...
The question is, how are the electors required to vote if their candidate has become a senile incontinent incompetent?
Will that DEPEND on how the individual states structure their requirements?