Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas’s Method of Appointing Presidential Electors

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today applauded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for affirming the constitutionality of the State’s method of appointing representatives to the Electoral College. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling states that Texas’s winner-take-all system, a method that dates back to the first presidential election and that is used in all but two States today, does not burden any person’s right to vote and causes no harm on account of a voter’s political views.  

“The Fifth Circuit confirmed that Texas is in full compliance with the Constitution, which has clearly allowed for States to appoint electors as directed by the Legislature since 1789. Texas elections remain free, fair and lawful,” said Attorney General Paxton. “I applaud the Court for rejecting this baseless challenge to the framework of our electoral process and for protecting the authority of state legislatures to decide how to appoint presidential electors, as our Founders intended.”  

AG Paxton Defends Electoral College at Fifth Circuit

AUSTIN – On behalf of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Governor Greg Abbott, Deputy Solicitor General Matthew Frederick today defended the time-honored Electoral College system at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Texas’s method of appointing presidential electors is consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s command that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress.” Texas appoints the State’s presidential electors on a winner-take-all basis to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in a statewide election—a method that dates back to the first presidential election and that is used in all but two states today.  

“Only an amendment to the Constitution can change or eliminate the stable and successful presidential election system designed by our Founders. The Electoral College has been in constant use since 1789, and the Constitution clearly allows states to appoint electors as directed by the Legislature,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Texas and the 47 other states that selected the winner-take-all method are operating in full compliance with the Constitution. This challenge to the Electoral College system is not just baseless, it threatens to destroy the framework of our election process.” 

Nearly 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a decision rejecting the argument that the winner-take-all system is unconstitutional. One year ago, the U.S. District Court in San Antonio dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Electoral College system, finding that Texas’s method of appointing electors does not deny any person an equally weighted vote or deny any voter’s First Amendment rights of association or expression. The election process in Texas is free, fair, and lawful.

AG Paxton Files Brief Supporting Fifth Circuit’s Obamacare Decision

AUSTIN
– Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a brief with the United States
Supreme Court today, arguing that the Fifth Circuit’s decision to
declare Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional and remand the
case to the district court does not require review by the Supreme Court
at this time. The brief also argues the U.S. House of Representatives,
which petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision, lacks
standing to request such a review.

“The
Fifth Circuit’s opinion declaring the individual mandate
unconstitutional is a straightforward application of existing U.S.
Supreme Court precedent. The Fifth Circuit has ordered this case to
return to district court to determine which, if any, provisions of
Obamacare are still valid notwithstanding the unconstitutional mandate.
That is where this case belongs at this time,” said Attorney General
Paxton. “I applaud the Fifth Circuit for upholding the core principle
that the federal government cannot order private citizens to purchase
subpar insurance that they don’t want. I look forward to demonstrating
exactly how this law has failed in district court.”

When
the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in 2012, a majority of the
justices agreed that Obamacare’s individual mandate was constitutional
only because its accompanying tax penalty could justify forcing
individuals to purchase health insurance under Congress’ taxing power.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 removed the penalty, meaning
Obamacare’s intrusive individual mandate cannot be preserved as a tax,
and rendering it unlawful.

To view a copy of today’s brief, click here.