Posted on 06/14/2021 5:57:14 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court rejected a case that challenged California’s electoral process by claiming that the state’s “so-called winner-take-all system” dilutes their votes.
The lawsuit was filed by comedian Paul Rodriguez, Rocky Chavez, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the California League of United Latin American Citizens, and it had asked the Supreme Court to look into whether the aforementioned “winner-take-all” approach to selecting presidential electors was constitutional.
Attorneys for Chavez and Rodriguez—who are both reportedly Republicans—argued (pdf) that California’s system “results in the appointment of members of only one political party to the nation’s largest electoral college delegation.” Chavez previously served in the California State Assembly and ran during the 2018 midterm election in California’s 49th Congressional District.
According to their lawsuit, such a process “is not within the Constitution” and “is instead a partisan invention by the states that has become the default for the nation.” The suit also asserts that the process “severs the connection between voters and presidential candidates.”
But on June 14, the Supreme Court declined (pdf) to hear the lawsuit in an unsigned order. The court didn’t provide an explanation in denying certiorari.
Lawyers for Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the defendant in the suit, pushed back against it by claiming “there is no cause for concern,” and California “does not treat any voter or group of voters differently from any other or prevent anyone from casting a vote.”
“While a winner-take-all system of awarding presidential electors certainly ‘raises the stakes of victory,’ it does not interfere with petitioners’ ability to associate freely with the political party of their choice or otherwise deprive them of an ‘equal opportunity to win votes,'” Newsom’s attorneys wrote.
The decision to not hear the case suggests that the Supreme Court justices have little appetite for election-related cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
California has a Voting Process ?
After 35 years in my line of work I still don’t get to pick and choose my tasks.
And no appetite for a Constitutional govt either it seems.
Correct decision. Constitutionally the states can pick their electors any way they choose.
Yep, also almost every state does it this way. An alternate ruling would have cancelled every presidential election in history.
And that is a good thing. All these new laws getting signed, even though some seem to not have any of the teeth that we’d all love them to have, the Lefties have no where to go.
State matter = State Court.
Does that mean that the system is perfect? Nope. But, at least it’ll keep them on the home team field and not have a case from Georgia end up in the 9th Circuit. Hopefully.
My guess is were the state courts favorable to Yrump Supporters and Anti-Trump forces appealed, those rats on SCOTUS WOULD intervene.
I believe winner take all started in 1960 and aided JFK’s theft.
“ An alternate ruling would have cancelled every presidential election in history.”
Really? I guess we would have to remove all their monuments and statues, oh wait, thats already been done.
I believe each state can determine their electoral college apportionment, including winner take all, which has and is, a tradition for most.
One thing I’d be interested in seeing is if states enacted a “electoral college” type thing. I doubt there would too many states with Democrat Governors. Sizable portions of states we all consider BLUE have very large Republican populations. Outside of Cali and some of the New England states, most of them have Republican controlled legislatures. Be real interesting if the the Governors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, NY, Louisiana, Kentucky, Nevada didn’t rely on the fraud and last minute ballot stuffing from the inner city votes and the heavy Dem areas.
Then again, even in some of them, if they didn’t allow any of the results to be tabulated that day, sealed all the ballot boxes and started counting the next day, the Dem’s wouldn’t be able to stuff the boxes at the last minute to squeak out their wins.
What do you believe that?
Comment self deleted. Tagline is enough.
It was much earlier than that - not every state - but since the dawn of the Republic.
Neither did the Soviet Union.
Possibly - but it was also a rather ridiculous and meritless case.
The separate sovereign states control how their electoral votes will be, which is precisely how the founders set it up. The sovereign states are the fundmental building blocks of the nation.
It is not a “winner take all” state vote system that is the problem. It is the electorates of the commie liberal states that is the problem.
If every state apportioned votes by the ratios won in each state, you would basically have nothing more than a popular vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.