McPherson v. Blacker

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on October 17, 1892.[2] The case concerned a law passed in Michigan which divided the state into separate congressional districts and awarded each of the state's electoral votes to the winner of each district. The suit was filed by several of these electors chosen in the 1892 election, including William McPherson, against Robert R. Blacker, the Secretary of State of Michigan. It was the first Supreme Court case to consider whether certain methods of states' appointments of their electors were constitutional.[3] The Court, in a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Melville Fuller,[4] upheld Michigan's law, and more generally gave state legislatures plenary power over how they appointed their electors.[1] The Court held that Article Two of the United States Constitution also constrains the ability of each state to limit the ability of its state legislators to decide how to appoint their electors.[5][6]

McPherson v. Blacker
Argued October 11, 1892
Decided October 17, 1892
Full case nameMcPherson v. Blacker
Citations146 U.S. 1 (more)
13 S. Ct. 3; 36 L. Ed. 869
Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require state legislatures to appoint their electors in the Electoral College on the basis of the popular vote. State legislatures have "plenary" power to allocate their electors however they want to.[1]
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Stephen J. Field · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray · Samuel Blatchford
Lucius Q. C. Lamar II · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown · George Shiras Jr.
Case opinion
MajorityMelville Fuller
Laws applied
Article Two of the United States Constitution

Impact in Bush v. Gore (2000)

The ability of states to determine the selection and apportionment of their electors was later reaffirmed in another Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore (2000).[4] McPherson was also cited in Bush v. Gore by both George W. Bush[7] and by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in his concurring opinion.[8]

gollark: Hmm, can I declare a new language to write in? Brotlipython™. To interpret it, you just run the source file through `brotli` decompression then interpret it as python.
gollark: oh no.
gollark: golfiness.
gollark: ææ indeed!
gollark: ...

References
  1. Kirby, James C. (Summer 1962). "Limitations on the Power of State Legislatures over Presidential Elections". Law and Contemporary Problems. 27 (3): 495–509. doi:10.2307/1190592. JSTOR 1190592.
  2. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892).
  3. Zadrozny, John (January 1, 2003). "The Myth of Discretion: Why Presidential Electors Do Not Receive First Amendment Protection". CommLaw Conspectus. 11 (1): 165–184.
  4. Bomboy, Scott (December 20, 2016). "Electoral College a rare topic of discussion at Supreme Court". National Constitution Center. Retrieved March 20, 2019.
  5. Hasen, Richard L. (December 6, 2007). "When 'Legislature' May Mean More than 'Legislature': Initiated Electoral College Reform and the Ghost of Bush v. Gore". Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Rochester, NY. SSRN 1065421.
  6. Pleasants, J. (September 20, 2004). Hanging Chads: The Inside Story of the 2000 Presidential Recount in Florida. Springer. pp. 54–55. ISBN 9781403973405.
  7. Katyal, Neal Kumar (December 1, 2000). "Protecting and preserving Florida's process". CNN. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  8. Rehnquist, William H. (December 13, 2000). "George W. Bush vs. Al Gore". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.