McPherson v. Blacker
1892 U.S. LEXIS 2171, 13 S. Ct. 3, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures plenary and exclusive power to determine the manner of appointing presidential electors, which is not limited to a statewide, general-ticket system.
Facts:
- The Michigan Legislature passed an act on May 1, 1891, which changed the method for appointing the state's presidential electors.
- The new law provided for the election of one elector from each of the state's twelve congressional districts.
- The act also created two additional districts for the purpose of electing two electors-at-large.
- This district-based system replaced Michigan's previous practice of appointing all electors based on a single, statewide popular vote (a general ticket or winner-take-all system).
- William McPherson, Jr. and others were nominated as candidates for presidential electors who would be voted for on a statewide general ticket if the new district-based law were held invalid.
Procedural Posture:
- William McPherson, Jr., and other electoral candidates initiated a mandamus proceeding in the Supreme Court of Michigan, the state's highest court.
- The petitioners (plaintiffs in error) sought a writ of mandamus to compel Robert R. Blacker, the Secretary of State of Michigan, to disregard the 1891 district-based election act.
- They asked the court to order the Secretary of State to issue notices for the election of presidential electors under the prior general ticket system.
- The Supreme Court of Michigan denied the petition for mandamus, upholding the validity of the 1891 act against both state and federal constitutional challenges.
- McPherson and the other petitioners then sought a writ of error from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law directing the appointment of presidential electors by a district-based system, rather than a statewide general ticket, violate Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Fuller
No. A state law directing the appointment of presidential electors by a district-based system does not violate the Constitution, as the power to determine the manner of appointment is vested exclusively in the state legislature. The Constitution's text in Article II, Section 1—'Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct'—is a broad grant of plenary power, not a limitation. The court's reasoning is heavily supported by contemporaneous and subsequent historical practice; from the nation's founding, states have employed various methods, including appointment by the legislature itself, by general ticket, and by districts. The fact that the general ticket system has become the prevalent practice does not diminish the constitutional authority of a legislature to choose a different method. Furthermore, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments do not alter this specific grant of power, as they address citizenship, equal protection, and voting discrimination based on race, not the method of appointing electors.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the principle of state legislative supremacy in the context of appointing presidential electors. It clarifies that the widely used 'winner-take-all' system is a policy choice made by state legislatures, not a constitutional mandate. The ruling preserves the flexibility for states to adopt alternative methods, such as the district system used by Maine and Nebraska, which could significantly alter the outcomes of presidential elections by allowing for a split of a state's electoral votes. The Court's heavy reliance on historical practice also reinforces this method of constitutional interpretation for powers enumerated in the original text.
