Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

20 

MOORE v. HARPER 

Opinion of the Court 

Number of Electors.”  Art. II, §1, cl. 2.  McPherson consid-
ered a challenge to the Michigan Legislature’s decision to
allocate  the  State’s  electoral  votes  among  the  individual 
congressional districts, rather than to the State as a whole.
We upheld that decision, explaining that in choosing Presi-
dential electors, the Clause “leaves it to the legislature ex-
clusively to define the method of effecting the object.”  146 
U. S., at 27. 

Our decision in McPherson, however, had nothing to do
with any conflict between provisions of the Michigan Con-
stitution and action by the State’s legislature—the issue we 
confront  today.  McPherson  instead  considered  whether 
Michigan’s Legislature itself directly violated the Electors
Clause (by taking from the “State” the power to appoint and
vesting  that  power  in  separate  districts),  the  Fourteenth
Amendment (by allowing voters to vote for only one Elector 
rather  than  “Electors”),  and  a  particular  federal  statute. 
Id., at 8–9 (argument for plaintiffs in error).  Nor does the 
quote highlighted by petitioners tell the whole story.  Chief 
Justice Fuller’s opinion for the Court explained that “[t]he
legislative power is the supreme authority except as limited 
by the constitution of the State.”  Id., at 25 (emphasis added); 
see also ibid. (“What is forbidden or required to be done by 
a State is forbidden or required of the legislative power un-
der state constitutions as they exist.”).

The legislative defendants and JUSTICE THOMAS rely as 
well  on  our  decision  in  Leser  v.  Garnett,  258  U. S.  130 
(1922), but it too offers little support.  See post, at 17, 20– 
21.  Leser  addressed  an  argument  that  the  Nineteenth 
Amendment—providing women the right to vote—was in-
valid because state constitutional provisions “render[ed] in-
operative  the  alleged  ratifications  by  their  legislatures.” 
258 U. S., at 137.  We rejected that position, holding that 
when state legislatures ratify amendments to the Constitu-
tion,  they  carry  out  “a  federal  function  derived  from  the 
Federal  Constitution,”  which  “transcends  any  limitations