Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less