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

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

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting at voting booths.

A little-known interstate compact could change how the U.S. elects presidents by 2028, replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote.

Getty Images, VIEW press

The Quiet Campaign That Could Rewrite the 2028 Election

Most Americans are unaware, but a quiet campaign in states across the country is moving toward one of the biggest changes in presidential elections since the nation was founded.

A movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is happening mostly out of public view and could soon change how the United States picks its president, possibly as early as 2028.

Keep ReadingShow less