The Supreme Court rejected a case on Monday that challenged California’s electoral process that claimed the Golden State’s “winner-take-all” system weakens the impact of voters.
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. The suit asked the Supreme Court to evaluate whether the state’s voting process was constitutional.
“This cancellation of the votes of the minority party is unconstitutional for two reasons,” noted the petition, according to the California Globe. “First, as [a previous court ruling] makes clear, the government may not discard millions of votes at an intermediate step of a multi-stage election, like that for President.
“Second, as this Court made clear in White v. Register, on which the court below erroneously relied—states may not use at-large, slate elections for multi-member bodies to disregard the preferences of a minority of voters.
“Winner-take-all is not within the Constitution. It is instead a partisan invention by the states that has become the default for the nation.”
The problem dealt with the concerns of many conservative Californians who believe their votes are unheard in the largely Democrat state. California’s massive electoral influence follows its majority of blue state voters and has great influence over who wins presidential elections.
The case hoped to create change to the process, offering a way to divide the electoral vote to better represent the voters of the state. The court turned down the case without explanation.
CNN reported, “Attorneys for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is facing recall efforts, pushed back and wrote ‘there is no cause for concern,’ arguing that it ‘does not treat any voter or group of voters differently from any other or prevent anyone from casting a vote.'”