• September 25, 2021
 LULAC Sues Texas, Others Over Electoral College Vote System

LULAC Sues Texas, Others Over Electoral College Vote System

SAN ANTONIO – A coalition of activists and attorneys is suing Texas and three other states over their “winner-take-all” system of allocating Electoral College votes. The goal is to overturn a practice that they claim disenfranchises any voter who does not cast his or her ballot for the winning party.

Luis Vera, general counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens, said the winner-take-all system allows a candidate to gain the presidency despite losing the nationwide popular vote.

“So, in Texas, which we sued, Donald Trump received 52 percent of the popular vote, just a little over half. Yet he took all 38 electoral votes – 100 percent – because we’re winner-take-all,” Vera said. “How is that, anywhere, even fair?”

In 2016, Trump, a Republican, won the presidency in the Electoral College even though Democrat Hillary Clinton received 3 million more votes. Vera said the coalition also sued traditionally “blue” states California and Massachusetts, along with “red” state South Carolina.

By late last week, none of the states had issued a public response to the lawsuits.

Only two states, Maine and Nebraska, apportion electors based on the popular vote. Vera said the system violates the rights of Latino, black and other minority voters under the U.S. Voting Rights Act.

“It dilutes our voting power because it lessens the vote much more than the white Anglo,” he said; “because we’re always going to be the minority and we’re never going to be able to take the vote as we choose – that is, to elect our chosen candidate by ourselves.”

A constitutional amendment is the only way to substantially change the Electoral College, which Vera said, given the country’s political divide, might be impossible.

“This case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “And we want the Supreme Court to declare that the states need to come up with a system that more reflects the popular vote and not violate ‘one person one vote,’ right of association and the Voting Rights Act.”

Vera said whatever the outcome in the lower courts, the cases should make their way through appeals to the Supreme Court, a process that could take many years to play out.

Author: Mark Richardson – Texas News Service

Texas News Service

Texas News Service is an arm of the Public News Service that provides stories that examine the effects of policy on areas that receive too little coverage, lifting up often marginalized voices and making greater journalistic breadth on any platform.

Related post

3 Comments

  • There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

    Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

    The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

    It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

    It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

    It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

    It would not make every vote equal.

    It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

    The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

  • Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

    Nebraska in 2008 was the first time any state in the past century gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state.

    2016 is the first time an electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.

  • The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by states changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

Comments are closed.

El Paso Herald Post Download the new ElPasoHeraldPost.com app and get notifications for community news, deals and community calendar info. Your info is never shared and we would love for you to share our app with your friends!
Dismiss
Allow Notifications