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

An illustration of a paper that says "Ranked-Choice" with options listed below.
Image generated by IVN staff.

Why Mathematicians Love Ranked Choice Voting

The Institute for Mathematics and Democracy (IMD) has released what may be the most comprehensive empirical study of ranked choice voting ever conducted. The 66-page report analyzes nearly 4,000 real-world ranked ballot elections, including some 2,000 political elections, and more than 60 million simulated ones to test how different voting methods perform.

The study’s conclusion is clear. Ranked choice voting methods outperform traditional first-past-the-post elections on nearly every measure of democratic fairness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Three people looking at a gerrymandered map, with an hourglass in the foreground.
Image generated by IVN staff.

Missouri’s Gerrymander Faces a Citizen Veto, but State Officials Aren't Taking 'No' for an Answer

People Not Politicians (PNP) submitted over 305,000 signatures last week to freeze a congressional gerrymander passed by the Missouri Legislature in September. However, state officials are doing everything they can to pretend this citizen revolt isn’t happening.

“The citizens of Missouri have spoken loudly and clearly: they deserve fair maps, not partisan manipulation,” said PNP Executive Director Richard von Glahn.

Keep ReadingShow less
Let's End Felony Disenfranchisement. Virginia May Lead the Way

Virginia Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger promises major reforms to the state’s felony disenfranchisement system.

Getty Images, beast01

Let's End Felony Disenfranchisement. Virginia May Lead the Way

When Virginia’s Governor-Elect, Abigail Spanberger, takes office next month, she will have the chance to make good on her promise to do something about her state’s outdated system of felony disenfranchisement. Virginia is one of just three states where only the governor has the power to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their prison terms.

It is the only state that also permanently strips a person’s rights to be a public notary or run for public office for a felony conviction unless the governor restores them.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation highlights the Primary Problem—tiny slivers of voters deciding elections. Here’s why primary reform and open primaries matter.

Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker

Marjorie Taylor Greene Resigns: The Primary Problem Exposes America’s Broken Election System

The Primary Problem strikes again. In announcing her intention to resign from Congress in January, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) became the latest politician to quit rather than face a primary challenge from her own party.

It’s ironic that Rep. Greene has become a victim of what we at Unite America call the "Primary Problem," given that we often point to her as an example of the kind of elected official our broken primary system produces. As we wrote about her and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “only a tiny sliver of voters cast meaningful votes that elected AOC and MTG to Congress – 7% and 20%, respectively.”

Keep ReadingShow less