Rodriguez v. Newsom, No. 18-56281 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Appellants filed suit alleging that California's winner-take-all (WTA) approach to selecting its presidential electors violates the equal protection and First Amendment rights of California residents who, like appellants, usually do not vote for the State's popular vote winner and thus enjoy no representation among the State's electors.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that appellants' equal protection challenge is foreclosed by Williams v. Virginia State Board of Elections, a decades-old opinion that was summarily affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 288 F. Supp. 622 (E.D. Va. 1968), aff'd, 393 U.S. 320 (1969), reh'g denied, 393 U.S. 1112 (1969). The panel joined three sister circuits to have considered the issue in holding that, under Williams, a State's use of WTA to select its presidential electors is consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
The panel also held that appellants have failed to plausibly allege that California's use of WTA to select presidential electors violates the First Amendment. The panel explained that, because appellants can participate fully in California's presidential election, including voting for their preferred candidates, their right to cast an effective vote is not burdened. Furthermore, WTA does not limit appellants' ability to associate with like-minded voters, and appellants do not allege any restrictions on their ability to petition. Even assuming that appellants had plausibly alleged that the State's use of WTA imposed some minimal burden, their claims would still fail. In this case, any burden is—at most—minimal, and California has identified an important interest: maximizing the impact of the State's electors within the Electoral College.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint which alleged that California’s winner-take-all approach to selecting its presidential electors violates the equal protection and First Amendment rights of California residents who, like appellants, usually do not vote for the State’s popular vote winner and thus enjoy no representation among the State’s electors. The panel held that appellants’ equal protection challenge was foreclosed by Williams v. Virginia State Board of Elections, a decades-old opinion that was summarily affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 288 F. Supp. 622 (E.D. Va. 1968), aff’d, 393 U.S. 320 (1969), reh’g denied, 393 U.S. 1112 (1969). The panel joined the three sister circuits to have considered the issue in holding that, under Williams, a State’s use of the winner-take-all approach ** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. RODRIGUEZ V. NEWSOM 3 (WTA) to select its presidential electors is consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. The panel rejected appellants’ arguments that post-Williams cases involving multimember districts raised doubts regarding Williams’s continued viability, or that Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963), a Supreme Court case that predated Williams, controlled rather than Williams. The panel held that appellants failed to plausibly allege that California’s use of WTA to select presidential electors violates the First Amendment. The panel rejected appellants’ contentions that the WTA system burdened their right to cast their votes effectively, to associate with like- minded voters across the State, and to petition their government and associate with the candidates of their choice. Moreover, the panel held that even assuming appellants had plausibly alleged the State’s use of WTA imposed some minimal burden, their claims would still fail. Any burden was—at most—minimal, and California had identified an important interest: maximizing the impact of the State’s electors within the Electoral College.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.