Winner take all? Not if Electoral College critics win cases

BOSTON >> When Donald Trump won more than 52 percent of the Texas vote during the 2016 election, he pocketed all 38 of that state’s Electoral College votes just as Hillary Clinton, who won California with 61 percent of the vote, swept up all 55 of that state’s electors.

It’s a winner-take-all system used by 48 states that critics hope to have ultimately ruled unconstitutional. Advocates took their first step last month by filing federal lawsuits in four states — Massachusetts, Texas, California and South Carolina — arguing that the practice of assigning all of a state’s Electoral College votes to the popular winner, no matter how narrow, runs counter to the principle of “one person, one vote” by disenfranchising those who voted for the losing candidate.

The group behind the initiative, the League of United Latin American Citizens, said the practice also violates the constitutional rights of free association, political expression and equal protection under the law.

Luis Vera, an attorney for the group, pointed to the Texas election, arguing that those who backed Clinton essentially saw their votes disappear.

“When that vote actually gets to the Electoral College, it’s just thrown away. It’s counted simply to be thrown away,” he said. “In California, it was the opposite.”

Their goal is to get the question eventually before the U.S. Supreme Court — a long, uncertain road with no guarantee that the high court would even agree to hear the case, let alone rule in their favor.

The group is already getting pushback, including from William Galvin, who as the Massachusetts secretary of the commonwealth oversees state elections. Galvin, a Democrat, said he suspected the push might be an effort by Republicans to help rig the Electoral College in 2020 for Trump.