Erwin Chemerinsky: The Electoral College is unconstitutional and should be declared so

Reading We the People, p 86 ff.

In sum:

The court has held that 5th Amendment due process makes the equal protection clause binding on the federal government.

For half a century the court has held that equal protection imposes the principle of one person, one vote; "every person must have an equal ability to influence the outcome of an election".

[So every person must have the vote? Children? Mental incompetents? Noncitizens? What? - PV]

The Electoral College is inconsistent with this basic principle of democracy.

For example, each presidential vote in Wyoming is worth far more than a vote in California, writes EC, appealing to an argument that conflates a state's total population with its total number of voters.

Still, it's a good point, though it might have been better made by appeal to a principle insisting on equality of representation, which makes total population the relevant factor, rather than "one person, one vote" or "every person must have an equal ability to influence the outcome of an election", which both certainly seem to make the number of voters rather than population the decisive consideration.

He continues (p 87) saying "the judicial role is most important when the political system is incapable of reforming itself. That is why the Court's decisions concerning apportionment were so crucial. . . . [T]hose who benefitted from this [malapportionment] were not about to redraw legislative districts to vote themselves out of power. . . ."

"Earl Warren remarked that the most important decisions during his tenure on the Court were those ordering reapportionment precisely because the political process was never going to solve the constitutional problem. . . . It is especially important for the Court to act because the political process will never deal with the clear unconstitutionality of the Electoral College."

Democrats are not brave enough to pack the court, let alone commit such a brazen act of interpretation so very far from anything resembling original meanings, aims, or expectations.

Do they dare to eat a fig?

I doubt it.