[EL] The Electoral College & NPV

Thu Aug 30 00:34:16 PDT 2012

As an academic exercise regarding the constitutionality of an NPV compact,
could a case be made that it would be constitutional for 26 states with
just a little over 270 EC votes to make a compact, approved by congress, to
all give all their electoral college votes to the popular vote winner of
just their collective 26 states?

Further, if the Courts were to deem this unconstitutional, but deem the NPV
compact constitutional, would that be an exercise of judicial activism,
based more on judging the quality of the policies than on law?

Perhaps this question even has basis in reality, as republicans control the
state legislatures and governorships in states with 252 collective EC
votes (wy, va, ut, tx, tn, sd, sc, pa, ok, oh, ne, nd, ms, mi, me, la, ks,
in, id, ga, fl, az, al), and it wouldn't necessarily be a far leap to get
that over 270 (i.e. If NC had a Republican Governor, and had Wisconsin
Republicans not lost control of their state senate in the recall, they'd be
at 277).

I feel terrible raising this, since I support NPV, but I do wonder.

Thomas Cares

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Tara Ross <tara at taraross.com> wrote:

> I am sorry to start an email string, then be out-of-pocket for most of the
> afternoon.  A few thoughts on some comments that were made today:****
>
> ** **
>
> Jon, I am generally in favor of a better informed electorate/electors, but
> I don’t think the history of electors is quite so cut and dried.  Probably
> some delegates did expect electors to be selected based on civic virtue,
> but others just punted the decision to the states.  As early as 1796, there
> were complaints about a faithless elector.****
>
> ** **
>
> Rob, I am not surprised that you didn’t like my language about eliminating
> the Electoral College. Effectively, however, that is what NPV will do. NPV
> will implement a national direct election, despite the fact that such a
> system was deliberately rejected by the Constitutional Convention. I
> recognize that it is important for NPV to keep up the mantra that this is
> only about states’ rights, but I find the argument to be a bit
> disingenuous. There is a rather big difference between (a) a state deciding
> to get rid of the winner-take-all system within its own borders; and (b) a
> minority of states deciding – for every other state – what method of
> presidential elections America will use. We have a procedure by which we
> are supposed to make such momentous decisions. It is outlined in Article V
> of the Constitution.****
>
> ** **
>
> Re: the district and proportional systems that have been proposed in
> various states.  I am adamantly against any such decision made for partisan
> purposes – by either party and in any state.  I do, however, think that a
> state legislature may legitimately adopt either method if it genuinely
> feels that such a decision will serve the state. I generally defer to each
> state to work out its own method. Having said that, if a district proposal
> were made in my own home state of Texas, I would work to defeat it. The
> main reason is Texas’s immense size. Our gerrymandering and redistricting
> problems are pretty bad already.  A district system would simply make
> matters far worse. I could see where a smaller state with fewer districts
> would be less concerned with that particular aspect of the district plan.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Can I add, for the record, that I was asked to help the effort to change
> to a district system in California; I declined for many of the reasons
> outlined above. My position in Texas is not about my political party.****
>
> ** **
>
> Finally, I also dislike proportional allocation of electors because I feel
> that it would encourage lawsuits…..That last elector will always be
> contested. I can easily imagine a situation, for instance, where a swing of
> a few hundred votes means that we round UP instead of DOWN, changing who
> gets that last elector.  Recounts and lawsuits are inevitable in that
> situation. I would prefer to avoid that.****
>
> ** **
>
> And now I am off to watch Paul Ryan.  Thanks for everyone’s comments.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Scarberry,
> Mark
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:34 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.EDU
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] The Electoral College & NPV****
>
> ** **
>
> At this point I am persuaded that the NPV interstate compact conflicts
> with the Constitution. I’m open to arguments in its favor, but thus far I
> haven’t heard any that are convincing. (One con law scholar whom I much
> respect has suggested to me that I’m wrong, which is making me go back and
> work through the issue. So far my opinion is unchanged.)****
>
> ** **
>
> The popular vote question is entirely separate, as a matter of
> constitutional law, from the block-voting, winner-takes-all approach to
> allocation of electoral votes taken now by almost all states. Any state
> legislature is perfectly free to adopt a district approach. Such an
> approach is perfectly consistent with the Constitution; it would represent
> a proper exercise by a state legislature of the power to determine the
> manner by which the state (not the nation but the state) appoints the
> state’s electors. See McPherson v. Blacker (1892). Similarly (and even more
> clearly), a proportional approach would be a constitutional way for a
> state’s legislature to exercise the power granted to it by the US
> Constitution. I’ve argued that the power is specifically given to the state
> legislature, and that it therefore cannot be exercised by the people of a
> state through an initiative. That’s been my position with regard to
> potential initiatives both in Colorado (which was thought might have
> benefitted the Democratic Party) and in California (which would have
> benefitted the Republican Party very substantially). ****
>
> ** **
>
> Mark****
>
> ** **
>
> Mark S. Scarberry****
>
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law****
>
> Malibu, CA 90263****
>
> (310)506-4667****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rob
> Richie
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:01 PM
> *To:* Jboppjr
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] The Electoral College & NPV****
>
> ** **
>
> The full GOP platform statement (below) is quite revealing. Here's the
> line that jumps out to me: NPV is "a guarantee of corruption as every
> ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency."*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> The logic of that concern is basically "when every vote counts, there's
> more chances for fraud." Jonathan Swift might suggest that rather than
> reduce 50-state elections to fewer than ten under the current rules, we
> could take it further -- maybe just reduce meaningful voting to one state
> in which we could try to prevent fraud and just let those voter decide for
> the rest of us. Heck, we could just let the Dixville Notch folks in New
> Hampshire make the choice every four years sitting around a wood stove.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> But I did have a serious question for Jim. What does it meant to oppose
> "any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral
> College." Does "distort the procedures" mean the GOP is now against
> Pennsylvania trying to change the winner-take-all rule to congressional
> district allocation?  Does it mean changes to rules involving faithless
> electors? Something else? I wasn't sure.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Rob****
>
>
> ######****
>
> FULL GOP PLATFORM STATEMENT:****
>
> ** **
>
> We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme
> to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize
> that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be
> a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as
> every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the
> presidency.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Jboppjr <jboppjr at aol.com> wrote:****
>
>
> For those who are interested the Republican National platform specifically
> opposes the National Popular Vote Initiative. Jim Bopp
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note™, an AT&T LTE smartphone****
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> Subject: Re: [EL] The Electoral College & NPV
> From: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
> To: Tara Ross <tara at taraross.com>
> CC: Re: [EL] The Electoral College & NPV
>
>
> Congratulations on your updated book, Tara -- I look forward to chances to
> discuss the issue with you this fall.****
>
> ** **
>
> To clarify on one point, you write: "Even for those who wish to do away
> with the Electoral College, a constitutional amendment is a far better
> route toward change."****
>
> ** **
>
> A constitutional amendment of course is required "to do away with the
> Electoral College" in any form. But to do away with states using the
> winner-take-all rule (a rule that founders like James Madison lamented as
> getting away from their vision), it simply takes a state law. State laws
> historically have been the means to change much involving selection of the
> president, including the very fact of having elections at all - -a change
> that back in 1812, perhaps, someone might have argued should best be done
> by constitutional amendment.****
>
> ** **
>
> I should note that while backers of a national popular vote for president
> seem able to unify behind the national popular vote for president, I
> suspect they right now would not unify in backing a constitutional
> amendment. Some backers of NPV want to keep power over presidential
> selection with the states, and would oppose any amendment mandating direct
> election. Some backers of a direct election amendment would like to see a
> plurality vote rule for president, while others would prefer a runoff or
> instant runoff system. Some backers of direct election would like to have a
> strong unitary election administration, others would like to see
> continuation of the decentralized approach to election administration that
> was part of the amendment drives a generation ago.****
>
> ** **
>
> Given that you clearly prefer the current rules to a national popular vote
> president, I'm surprised you would rather see a national popular vote
> enshrined in the Constitution rather than the product of state laws that
> much more easily  could be changed in the future.****
>
> ** **
>
> Rob****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tara Ross <tara at taraross.com> wrote:****
>
> In a little bit of shameless self-promotion, I thought this listserv might
> be interested to know that the 2nd edition of my book, *Enlightened
> Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College *will be released on
> September 3.  Yes, I am sorry to say that, back in January when the release
> date was being set, none of us clued in that September 3 is Labor Day.  :)
> The Amazon link is here: www.EnlightenedDemocracy.com ****
>
>  ****
>
> I am sure that Rob Richie, John Koza and others are very excited to
> receive this email and will have rave reviews of the book coming soon……Ha!
> Yes, I am kidding! ****
>
>  ****
>
> On a serious note, I hope the three new chapters in the book do a fair job
> of articulating the philosophical, logistical, and legal concerns that some
> of us have with NPV’s legislation.  Even for those who wish to do away with
> the Electoral College, a constitutional amendment is a far better route
> toward change.****
>
>  ****
>
> I am sorry to miss several of you at the NPV panel in New Orleans this
> weekend.   It would have been a good discussion, I don’t doubt.****
>
>  ****
>
> Happy Labor Day!****
>
>  ****
>
> Tara****
>
>  ****
>
> ============ ****
>
> *Tara Ross* ****
>
> 8409 Pickwick Ln, #280****
>
> Dallas, Texas 75225****
>
> (214) 750-4737****
>
> (214) 750-4633 (fax) ****
>
> tara at taraross.com****
>
> web <http://www.taraross.com/> / Facebook<http://facebook.com/TaraRoss.1787>/
> Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/TaraRoss>****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> www.fairvote.org  <http://www.fairvote.org/> rr at fairvote.org
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a
> gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
> 10132.) Thank you!****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> www.fairvote.org  <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a
> gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
> 10132.) Thank you!****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120830/32902071/attachment.html>