Is it a good idea for the Texas Legislature to enact a law that forces presidential electors to remain faithful to the oath they take?

Yes.

Another Texas Republican elector, Christopher Suprun of Dallas, has declared he won’t cast his vote next week for Donald J. Trump, who won the state’s 38 electoral votes. He hasn’t said for whom he’ll vote, but it has drawn a response from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who said he’s going to look into whether the Legislature will write a law that binds future electors to their pledge.

I think that’s a reasonable requirement. Texas would join 29 other states that have similar laws on the books.

Suprun joins another GOP elector, Art Sisneros, in denying Trump their electoral votes. There’s a big difference, though, in the two men’s decision. Suprun will cast his vote; Sisneros, on the other hand, took the more noble approach and quit his post as an elector. Sisneros said he couldn’t in good conscience vote for Trump — but neither could he violate the oath he took when he signed on as an elector.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/07/patrick-rogue-texas-elector-could-lead-binding-law/

I don’t suppose Patrick would seek a law that prevents electors from quitting, as Sisneros did. However, Suprun’s decision is a bit troublesome. The difficulty, in my mind, has nothing to do with Trump. I wouldn’t vote for Trump, either.

Instead, it’s related directly to the oath this elector took to keep faith with the state’s voters, who gave the president-elect a 9 percentage point victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

These public oaths don’t by themselves bind those who take them to remain faithful. But they should. These electors sign on as loyal Republicans or Democrats. Trump won the GOP nomination fair and square and won the presidential election under the rules laid out by the U.S. Constitution.

Patrick and the Legislature cannot enact a law quickly enough to make Suprun toe the line. They ought to do so for future presidential elections. Fair is fair.