In this second of a two-part series of columns for Justia.com, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar evaluates the major constitutional and statutory voting rights claims asserted in the federal challenge to Texas’s use of the so-called Winner-Take-All approach to selecting the state’s representatives to the Electoral College. Amar explains why he finds both types of arguments set forth in the complaint largely unpersuasive. He writes:

"Perhaps Texas’ system (and that of many other states) is unfair, but does that make it unconstitutional? I am somewhat doubtful of the claim. For starters, realize that simply because with multiple-office elections we can imagine without much difficulty ways of empowering statewide minorities (such as by proportional representation or breaking the state into geographical districts) doesn’t by itself mean that states are violating the Constitution in adopting an at-large, winner-take-all approach. Indeed, as a general matter, at-large election schemes (which political scientists argue have some advantages over other methods) are not unconstitutional except insofar as they are used to invidiously deny racial minorities a fair chance of winning elections. If an all-white state wanted to use an at-large system for its state legislature, that would not violate the Constitution even if one political party dominated the contests for a long period of time. At-large systems violate the Constitution only when they are used for racially improper purposes."

Read the full post at verdict.justia.com.