 |
| Tim Monzingo/The Daily Sentinel via AP |
Imagine the results of the 2016 election if Texas, won by President Trump, had instead split its 38 electoral college votes between him and Hillary Clinton. He would still have won the White House, but the margin would have been much closer.
A Hispanic advocacy group told a federal appeals court last week that’s exactly what should happen in the future.
The League of United Latin American Citizens says states treating elections as winner-take-all is an affront to the concept of one person, one vote. The group has filed lawsuits across the country seeking to force changes, with its challenge to Texas, the second biggest prize on the electoral map, going before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday.
“The implications could be it has a nationwide impact,” LULAC’s lawyer, Amy J. Mauser, told the panel of judges.
Texas lawyers told the appeals court judges LULAC’s case would upend more than two centuries of constitutional precedent and understanding, which has long recognized states have the right to decide how to award their electoral votes.
“The big picture here is that the winner take all system does not deny one person, one vote — or violate any expressional or associational rights of Democrats and third parties in Texas any more than it imposes a burden on Republicans or third parties in California,” said Matthew H. Frederick, assistant solicitor general for the state of Texas.
Texas is one of 48 states that does winner-take-all. Maine and Nebraska actually do allocate electoral votes based on who wins in each congressional district, with the overall state winner getting the rest.
The proposal the group is pushing would award a state’s total electoral votes proportionally to the overall vote percentage awarded for each candidate.Read the rest of the story HERE.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment