About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

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 nearly 3,000 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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most