McPherson v. Blacker
Does the U.S. Constitution permit a state legislature to provide for the selection of presidential electors by individual districts rather than by a statewide winner-take-all popular vote?
The Decision
9-0 decision · Opinion by Melville W. Fuller · 1892
Majority Opinion— Melville W. Fullerconcurring ↓
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Michigan's district-based system for choosing presidential electors, affirming the Michigan Supreme Court's decision. The opinion was written by Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller and joined by all participating justices.
The Court's reasoning centered on the text and history of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that each state shall appoint presidential electors 'in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.' Chief Justice Fuller emphasized that this language is sweeping and grants state legislatures virtually plenary — meaning full and complete — authority over the method of choosing electors. The Constitution does not prescribe any particular method; it leaves the choice entirely to the state legislature.
The Court conducted an extensive review of historical practice dating back to the earliest presidential elections, finding that the Framers clearly understood and intended that states would use varying methods. In the first presidential elections, some states chose electors through their legislatures directly, without any popular vote at all. Others used district-based systems, and still others used a general ticket. This diversity of approaches, the Court explained, was not an accident — it was exactly what the Constitution's framers contemplated. The general ticket system that had become dominant by the mid-19th century was a political choice by state legislatures, not a constitutional requirement.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment's language somehow required a statewide popular vote. The amendment's references to the election of electors did not alter the original grant of power to state legislatures under Article II. The Court emphasized that states retained broad latitude to decide whether electors would be chosen by the legislature itself, by the people of the whole state on a general ticket, by the people organized into districts, or by some combination of these methods.
The significance of the ruling was profound: it confirmed that the now-familiar winner-take-all system used by most states is a matter of political choice, not constitutional command. Any state legislature retains the constitutional authority to switch to a district-based system or other method for selecting presidential electors.
Concurring Opinions
There were no separate concurring opinions filed in this case; the Court was unanimous in both its judgment and its reasoning.
Background & Facts
In 1891, the Michigan state legislature passed Act No. 190, which fundamentally changed how the state would choose its presidential electors. Instead of using a 'general ticket' system — where the entire slate of electors is chosen by a single statewide popular vote, meaning the winning party takes all electoral votes — the new law divided Michigan into separate electoral districts. Under the new plan, one elector would be chosen from each of Michigan's twelve congressional districts, while the remaining two electors (corresponding to the state's two U.S. Senate seats) would be chosen from two specially created 'senatorial' districts that each combined several congressional districts.
The political backdrop was significant. Michigan's legislature had come under Democratic control, and Democrats saw the district system as a way to break the Republican Party's lock on all of Michigan's electoral votes. Under the winner-take-all system, Republicans had consistently swept the entire slate. A district-by-district approach would allow Democrats to win at least some electors in districts where they were strong.
William McPherson Jr. and several other Republican nominees for presidential elector filed a legal challenge. They petitioned the Michigan Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus — essentially a court order — directing Robert R. Blacker, Michigan's Secretary of State, to ignore the new district law and instead prepare election materials based on the old statewide general ticket system. The challengers argued that the Constitution required presidential electors to be chosen on a statewide basis, not district by district.
The Michigan Supreme Court rejected their arguments and upheld the constitutionality of the district plan. McPherson and the other electors then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, raising the federal constitutional question of whether Article II of the Constitution places limits on how state legislatures may structure the appointment of presidential electors. Because the case involved a direct interpretation of the Constitution's provisions governing presidential elections, the Supreme Court agreed to hear it.
The Arguments
McPherson argued that the Constitution requires presidential electors to be chosen on a statewide basis, reflecting the voice of the whole state as a single unit. He contended that Michigan's district-based system violated the constitutional design by fragmenting the state's electoral voice.
- Article II speaks of each 'State' appointing electors, implying the state acts as a single body and electors must be chosen by the people of the entire state
- The Fourteenth Amendment's reference to electors being chosen 'by the people thereof' in a state suggests a unified statewide electorate, not fragmented district-level constituencies
- Allowing district-by-district selection would undermine the principle that each state speaks with one unified voice in presidential elections
Blacker defended the Michigan legislature's authority to structure elector selection however it saw fit. He argued that Article II of the Constitution expressly grants state legislatures the power to direct the 'manner' of appointing electors, which includes choosing them by districts.
- The plain text of Article II, Section 1 says electors shall be appointed 'in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,' granting broad and exclusive discretion to state legislatures
- Historical practice from the founding era shows that many states used district-based systems, legislative appointment, or hybrid methods — there was no uniform statewide requirement
- Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment or any other constitutional provision stripped state legislatures of this longstanding flexibility