About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Robert Timothy Reagan, Does the Electoral College Dilute Votes 1 (2018)

handle is hein.congcourts/fjcdecd0001 and id is 1 raw text is: CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION Does the Electoral College Dilute Votes? Park v. Parnell (Timothy M. Burgess, D. Alaska 3:16-cv-281), James v. Cascos (Robert Pitman and Jeffrey C. Manske, W.D. Tex. 6:16-cv-457), Conant v. Oregon (Marco A. Hernandez, D. Or. 3:16-cv-2290), and Barnes v. Wisconsin (William C. Griesbach, E.D. Wis. 1:16-cv-1692) A pro se complaint sought to enjoin on a vote-dilution theory a state's Electoral College votes' going to the prevailing presidential candidate in the state, because although that candidate earned a ma- jority of electoral votes, an opposing candidate earned more votes nationwide. Four days later, the district judge ruled against the plain- tiff. Although the judge granted the plaintiff in forma pauperis status during the emergency phase of the litigation, the judge denied in forma pauperis status on appeal because the plaintiff did not present supplementary financial information as ordered. Pro se actions in Virginia, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin challenging winner-take-all allocations of Electoral College votes also were unsuccessful. Subject: Voting irregularities. Topics: Electoral College; pro se party. A 2016 lawsuit in Alaska unsuccessfully challenged the state's contribution to an Electoral College victory for the presidential candidate who placed second in national popular votes. Suits challenging the winner-take-all rule in Vir- ginia, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin also were unsuccessful. Virginia, Alaska, and Texas A voter filed a pro se federal complaint in the District of Alaska on December 12, 2016, against Alaska's three delegates to the Electoral College, seeking to enjoin the delegates from voting for Donald Trump as President because Hil- lary Clinton's receiving nearly three million more votes than Trump nation- wide meant that an Electoral College victory for Trump would effectively cause a single vote for Clinton to be valued less than a single vote for Trump.' The voter filed a motion for expedited consideration with her complaint.2 Two days later, Judge Timothy M. Burgess set the case for hearing on De- cember 15. Although the voter did not explain efforts to communicate with or the positions taken by opposing parties, Judge Burgess observed that the matter needed to be resolved by the December 19 meeting of the Electoral College.' 1. Complaint at 3, Park v. Parnell, No. 3:16-cv-281 (D. Alaska Dec. 12, 2016), D.E. 1; see Alaska's Presidential Electors Set to Vote Trump Despite Intense Lobbying, Alaska Dispatch News, Dec. 16, 2016. 2. Motion, Park, No. 3:16-cv-281 (D. Alaska Dec. 12, 2016), D.E. 4. 3. Order, id. (Dec. 14, 2016), D.E. 5. 4. Id. Federal Judicial Center 7/10/2018 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most