Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Winner-take-all electoral vote system is constitutional, appeals court says

Winner-take-all electoral vote system is constitutional, appeals court says
Kameleon007/Getty Images

Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas might not like how their state awards electoral votes, but the winner-take-all system used in 48 states is constitutional, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The League of United Latin American Citizens has challenged the winner-take-all system for awarding the 38 votes from Texas, the second biggest Electoral College prize, arguing it violates the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and freedom of association to voters from the losing political party. (That's been the state's Democrats in 10 straight presidential contests and is likely to be them again this fall.)

LULAC has filed similar suits in California, Massachusetts and South Carolina in the hopes of compelling states to award electoral votes proportionally based on popular vote totals, a form of the system now used only in Nebraska and Maine.


The four states are in different federal circuits, so different rulings from different appeals courts could eventually push the Supreme Court to provide the ultimate answer.

In the Texas case, on Wednesday a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Texas lawsuit by citing, among other things, a 1969 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Virginia's winner-take-all system.

LULAC's argument centered on how the current system disincentivizes Democratic voters to turn out in presidential elections since the popular vote goes so predictably to the Republican nominee. The system also creates an environment where presidential candidates ignore Texas voters in favor of campaigning in swing states.

The court rejected those arguments, saying voters of the minority party may not like the winner-take-all process but it doesn't block their ballot access.

"There is a critical distinction between a system that diminishes voters' motivation to participate and one that burdens their ability to do so," Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a unanimous opinion. Although the winner-take-all system "may indirectly decrease the incentive of members of perennially losing political parties to vote," he continued, "it does not hinder their actual ability to vote."

LULAC "will continue to fight to make sure every American citizen's right to is enforced and that their vote counts," Domingo Garcia, the group's president, said in a statement. "Winner-Take-All electoral politics is a rigged system that dilutes the votes of Latinos and other minorities in states like Texas, California, Massachusetts and South Carolina."

Read More

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less