974 F.3d 998
9th Cir.2020Background
- California awards all presidential electors to the statewide popular‑vote winner (winner‑take‑all, WTA); plaintiffs are California Republican and third‑party voters who sued to challenge WTA.
- Plaintiffs alleged WTA violates the Equal Protection Clause by diluting votes of those who do not support the statewide winner (one‑person, one‑vote), and burdens First Amendment rights (effective voting, association, petitioning).
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, relying on McPherson and Williams to reject the equal protection claim and dismissing the First Amendment claims.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and held that Williams v. Virginia State Board of Elections (summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court) controls and forecloses the equal protection challenge to WTA.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ attempts to rely on later multimember‑district and voting jurisprudence (e.g., White, Gray, Bush) as displacing Williams, and found plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims implausible or, at most, minimally burdensome and justified by California’s interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection: Does WTA violate one‑person, one‑vote? | WTA “discards” votes for losing candidates and dilutes minority voters’ influence. | WTA is a longstanding, non‑invidious unit rule; Williams forecloses this challenge. | Dismissal affirmed; Williams controls—WTA consistent with Equal Protection. |
| Precedential effect: Is Williams still binding given later cases/statutory changes? | Post‑Williams developments (multimember district cases, congressional single‑member statute, Bush) undermine Williams. | Williams was summarily affirmed and binds lower courts; later decisions do not abrogate it here. | Williams remains controlling; subsequent developments do not overrule it. |
| First Amendment: Does WTA burden rights to vote effectively, associate, and petition? | WTA reduces incentives to vote/organize and causes candidates to ignore minority voters, impairing associational and petitioning rights. | WTA does not prevent voting, associating, or petitioning; effects are incentive‑based, not rights‑denying; any burden is minimal. | Plaintiffs failed to state plausible First Amendment claims; any burden is minimal and justified. |
| Remedy/Procedure: Was dismissal with prejudice appropriate? | Complaint adequately alleges constitutional injuries. | Complaint fails plausibly to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). | District court’s dismissal with prejudice was affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 320 (1969) (summary affirmance of district court upholding WTA against a one‑person, one‑vote challenge)
- McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) (Article II grants state legislatures broad power to appoint electors)
- Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316 (2020) (states have plenary authority to direct appointment of presidential electors)
- White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973) (multimember districts unconstitutional when used to invidiously cancel minority voting strength)
- Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) (one‑person, one‑vote principle and condemnation of geographically weighted unit systems)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (equal protection analysis of arbitrary and disparate recount procedures)