The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said Tuesday that Massachusetts’ winner-take-all system for presidential electors treats all voters equally and does not infringe on voters’ constitutional rights.

Three Massachusetts voters challenged the constitutionality of the winner-take-all method, alleging that
it violates their right to an “equally weighted vote” under the Equal Protection Clause and their “associational rights” to “effectively express their political preference through voting” under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Currently, the political party that wins the popular vote in Massachusetts, either by plurality or majority, claims all 11 of Massachusetts’ electors.

The case was originally dismissed by the Massachusetts District Court for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The First Circuit found that the appellants did have standing, but the court affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim.

The court said that the winner-take-all system does not deny voters equal participation in the political process. It does not, “by … arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” Even though the candidate who loses the popular vote is not entitled to any electors, that does not mean that the votes for that candidate were rendered meaningless. The court also noted that, although only one political party has prevailed in the past eight election cycles, that does not signify unequal treatment of political parties.

Following similar rulings in other states, the First Circuit found that the winner-take-all system in Massachusetts was constitutional and did not infringe upon voters’ rights.