374 F. Supp. 3d 563
D.S.C.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are South Carolina registered voters (many Democratic voters; several African-American) who challenge South Carolina’s winner-take-all (WTA) allocation of its nine Electoral College votes as unconstitutional.
- Plaintiffs assert their votes for losing presidential candidates are effectively discarded by the WTA system and seek relief under the Fourteenth Amendment (one person, one vote), the First and Fourteenth Amendments (freedom of association), and §2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- The Governor (McMaster) moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the Secretary of State (Hammond) joined. Plaintiffs opposed; the court held a hearing and treated precedent from parallel suits in other districts.
- South Carolina law prints presidential candidates’ names (not electors) on the ballot and awards all electors to the statewide popular vote winner (WTA). Plaintiffs emphasize decades in which Democrats in SC received no electors.
- The court analyzed constitutional and statutory claims, focused on whether WTA (1) violates equal protection/OPOV, (2) burdens association rights, or (3) violates §2 of the VRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SC’s WTA allocation violates the Fourteenth Amendment / one person, one vote by nullifying losing votes | WTA dilutes votes for losing candidate; those votes have no effect on electors and thus lack equal weight | States have plenary authority to appoint electors; WTA does not denigrate one citizen’s ballot or inherently favor a group | Dismissed — court finds WTA does not violate equal protection; will not extend Bush v. Gore to require proportional allocation |
| Whether WTA infringes First Amendment association rights | WTA imposes a severe burden on associational rights by rendering minority-party voting ineffective and depressing participation | Plaintiffs fail to allege an actual burden on associational ability; decreased motivation ≠ constitutional burden | Dismissed — plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege a constitutional associational burden |
| Whether WTA violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act (racial vote dilution) | Because Black voters in SC are largely Democratic and Democrats have received no electors for decades, §2 is violated by denying Black voters opportunity to elect their preferred candidate | WTA does not deny access to participation or show white bloc voting sufficient to defeat minority preferences under Gingles | Dismissed — §2 claim fails; plaintiffs do not meet the required showing |
| Justiciability / authority to change allocation method | Plaintiffs argue courts can review state methods for appointing electors under constitutional and statutory law | Defendants rely on precedent deferring to state legislatures’ plenary appointment power and prior summary affirmances | Court declines to reach novel extension of precedent; leaves broader questions to Supreme Court; dismissed on merits/standards presented |
Key Cases Cited
- McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (recognizing plenary state power to appoint electors)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (establishing justiciability of certain reapportionment/equal protection claims)
- Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (one person, one vote principle applied to state election systems; distinguishes the Electoral College)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (equal treatment of ballots in recount; court declines to extend its reasoning to WTA allocation)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (three-part test for §2 vote-dilution claims)
- Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173 (summary affirmances settle parties’ issues but do not always endorse reasoning)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for facial plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))