Do the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment prohibit California's winner-take-all system for appointing presidential electors?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners are two California Republicans and two non-profit organizations who have alleged their votes for President and Vice President are diluted by California’s use of the so-called winner-take-all system. That system, by law, results in the appointment of members of only one political party to the Nation’s largest electoral college delegation. The Ninth Circuit held that a claim brought under the Equal Protection Clause was properly dismissed because it was governed by a summary affirmance from over fifty years ago. It dismissed a claim brought under the First Amendment on independent grounds. The questions presented are: (1) Do the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, or both prohibit California—and, by the same reasoning, all the States—from appointing a one-party slate of presidential electors, thereby rendering irrelevant and ineffective the votes and views of millions of voters? (2) Does a_ fifty-year-old summary affirmance control, even where significant developments in election law since then have undermined its foundation and where the lower courts are split as to the proper scope of summary affirmances?