Today’s L.A. Times ran (part of my) letter to the editor concerning Kenneth Jost’s piece, claiming that the electoral college was unconstitutional.

To the editor: The only support that Kenneth Jost can muster for his remarkable argument that the electoral college is unconstitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds vs. Sims. (“The electoral college has always been the wrong way to choose a president,” Opinion, Dec. 16).

In that 1964 case, the justices invalidated Georgia’s apportionment scheme — where districts with greater population were underrepresented — finding that its design violates the principle of “one person, one vote.” Jost asserts that the two-century old electoral college’s “basic architecture flouts” the “principle” from this 50-year old case. As a threshold matter, the longevity of this practice is a solid indication that it is lawful.

In the 1963 case Gray vs. Sanders, Justice William O. Douglas specifically rejected the argument that the electoral college falls under the “one person, one vote” principle. He explained that despite the “inherent numerical inequality” of the electoral college, its “inclusion … in the Constitution, as the result of specific historical concerns,” did not place it under the same regime as the states.

Jost’s argument is not supported by text, history or precedent.

Josh Blackman, Houston

The writer is an associate professor at South Texas College of Law, where he specializes in constitutional law and the Supreme Court.

Here is the full letter, which I included in my post last week:

Kenneth Jost argues that the electoral college is unconstitutional. [“The electoral college has always been the wrong way to choose a president,” op-ed, Dec. 16]. The only support Mr. Jost can muster for his remarkable argument is the Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds v. Sims. In that 1964 case, the Justices invalidated Georgia’s apportionment scheme—where districts with greater population were underrepresented—finding that its design violates the principle of “one person, one vote.” Mr. Jost asserts that the two-century old electoral college’s “basic architecture flouts” the “principle” from this 50-year old case. As a threshold matter, the longevity of this practice is a solid indication that it is lawful. Citing Chief Justice Marshall’s decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Justices recently recognized that the “longstanding ‘practice of the government,’ can inform this Court’s determination of ‘what the law is’ in a separation-of- powers case.” But even on its own terms, Mr. Jost’s argument fails. In Reynolds v. Sims, Justice Douglas specifically rejected the argument that the electoral college falls under the “one person, one vote” principle. Quoting from his earlier decision in Gray v. Saunders, Justice Douglas explained that “despite” the “inherent numerical inequality” of the electoral college, its “inclusion . . . in the Constitution, as the result of specific historical concerns,” did not place it under the same regime as the states. Mr. Jost’s argument is not supported by text, history, or precedent.