## Facts

- Michigan enacted Act No. 50 (1891) changing its method of selecting presidential electors from a statewide general-ticket system to a mixed scheme.
- The Act provided for one elector chosen at large and one elector chosen from each congressional district, with alternates.
- McPherson and other nominees for presidential elector sought mandamus compelling Michigan’s Secretary of State to give notice of a statewide election for all electors under the prior general-ticket approach.
- The Secretary of State intended to administer the 1892 election under the 1891 Act by notifying local officials that one at-large elector and one district elector would be elected.
- The Michigan Supreme Court rejected constitutional challenges to the Act and denied mandamus, concluding the Act was valid except that any provision conflicting with federal law on the electors’ meeting date would be inoperative.

## Issues

1. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review a state-court judgment upholding a state law governing appointment of presidential electors against federal constitutional challenge.
2. Whether Article II, § 1, cl. 2 permits a state legislature to require district-based selection of presidential electors rather than statewide general-ticket selection.
3. Whether the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments require a statewide popular vote method for appointing electors, or create an individual constitutional right to vote for presidential electors.
4. Whether a state elector-appointment statute is invalid in full because it sets an electors’ meeting date different from the date fixed by Congress.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction to review because the validity of a state law was upheld against a federal constitutional objection.
- The Court affirmed the Michigan Supreme Court and upheld Michigan’s district-based elector-selection scheme.
- The Court held Article II grants the state legislature broad authority to direct the manner of appointing electors, including by district election, general ticket, or direct legislative appointment.
- The Court rejected Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment arguments that would restrict the legislature to a particular appointment method or confer a general constitutional right to vote for electors.
- Any state-law provision fixing an electors’ meeting date inconsistent with the federally prescribed date could be disregarded without invalidating the remainder of the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Article II, § 1, cl. 2 commits to each state legislature plenary authority to determine the “manner” of appointing presidential electors, subject to other applicable constitutional constraints.
- A state may select electors by district election, statewide general ticket, or direct legislative appointment; no single method is constitutionally required.
- The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments do not, by themselves, convert elector appointment into a federally mandated statewide popular-vote system or guarantee an individual right to vote for presidential electors independent of state choice of method.
- When Congress validly sets a uniform time for electors to meet and vote, conflicting state timing provisions are inoperative to that extent, and the remainder of the state elector-appointment law may remain effective.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained Michigan’s move from a statewide general-ticket system to a district-based elector system, holding that Article II gives state legislatures broad control over elector appointment methods, and that alleged conflicts with federal timing rules or Reconstruction Amendments did not invalidate the state’s chosen allocation method.


McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)