Also known as: plural majorities · plurality
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A voting outcome in which the candidate or proposition receiving the greatest number of votes prevails even though that number falls short of a majority of votes cast or entitled to be cast.
A voting outcome in which the candidate or proposition receiving the greatest number of votes prevails even though that number falls short of a majority of votes cast or entitled to be cast.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A judicial opinion that receives the greatest number of votes among the participating judges yet lacks the five votes needed for a majority rationale.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A judicial opinion that receives the greatest number of votes among the participating judges yet lacks the five votes needed for a majority rationale.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Atlas Ventures held preferred shares in Helix Pharma but the articles were silent on cumulative voting. At the annual meeting management nominees received the largest number of votes cast though less than half of all shares. The court upheld the election because the candidates with the most votes prevailed under the default rule.
Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast at a meeting where a quorum is present. The candidates receiving the most votes win even if they fall short of a majority of shares entitled to vote.
Supporting sources
A plurality opinion is the view that commands the most support among the justices but lacks five votes for any single rationale. Lower courts treat the result as controlling while the reasoning may have limited precedential force.
Supporting sources
No. Cumulative voting exists only when the articles expressly authorize it. Without that authorization the default plurality rule governs and each share receives one vote per seat.
Supporting sources
Dr. Rivera relied on mass spectrometry data from a foreign lab to form her opinion that the pills matched counterfeit profiles. A plurality of justices concluded the data could be used to explain her independent analysis without violating confrontation rights because it was not offered for its truth.
Several justices agreed that contribution limits could be sustained under the First Amendment while a different group would have struck them down. The opinion receiving the most support among the justices controlled the result even without five votes for any single rationale.
Multiple justices concluded that the village's refusal to rezone did not violate equal protection because the plaintiffs failed to prove discriminatory intent. The largest bloc of justices reached that conclusion and therefore the village prevailed.
A plurality of justices determined that the East Cleveland ordinance unconstitutionally intruded on family living arrangements protected by the Due Process Clause. That view commanded the most support and therefore the ordinance was invalidated.
Several justices concluded that the restrictions on corporate independent expenditures violated the First Amendment. The largest group of justices agreed on that outcome and therefore the restrictions were struck down.
…that the Framers thought exceptions would apply even to prior testimony. Cf. Lilly v. Virginia , 527 U. S. 116, 134 (1999) (plurality opinion) ("[A]ccomplices' confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule").[^maj-7] IV Our case law has been largely…