Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
Charlie Kirk’s Death Sparks Martyrdom Narrative Amid Rising Political Violence

Charlie Kirk’s Death Sparks Martyrdom Narrative Amid Rising Political Violence

Governor Cox’s Prayer Wasn’t Just Misguided—It Was Dangerous

Governor Cox’s Prayer Wasn’t Just Misguided—It Was Dangerous

Supreme Court

MAGA Supreme Court Justices Show Their True Colors by Joining Trump’s Attack on the Federal Judiciary

Donald Trump and the Rise of Political Violence

Donald Trump and the Rise of Political Violence

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
Geoff West
By Geoff WestFeb 28, 2020
Geoff West

Geoff West is a staff writer at The Fulcrum, where he covers voting and voting rights, civic education, civil discourse and disinformation. Email:geoffwest@thefulcrum.us

See More Writings by author

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."

Latest news

Political Assassinations Are Part of the “Constitutional Rot” That Afflicts America
Democracy

Political Assassinations Are Part of the “Constitutional Rot” That Afflicts America

Meacham: Political Violence in America Linked to Deep Questions of Identity and Inclusion
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Meacham: Political Violence in America Linked to Deep Questions of Identity and Inclusion

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.
Bridging & Common Ground

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

The Constitution and the American flag
Democracy

The Hidden Hinge of History: A Refreshing Look at the Constitution on Its Day

Read More

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table
Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2025