[EL] The Electoral College & NPV / unstated prohibitions on the states restricting their choice of methods for appointing presidential electors

[John Koza]

The 10th Amendment independently provides a rule for constitutional
interpretation concerning the question of whether there are unstated
prohibitions on the states restricting their choice of methods for
appointing presidential electors. 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people." 

 

 

Dr. John R. Koza. Chair

National Popular Vote

Box 1441

Los Altos Hills, California 94023 USA

Phone: 650-941-0336

Fax: 650-941-9430

Email: john at johnkoza.com

URL: www.johnkoza.com 

URL: www.NationalPopularVote.com

 

From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:26 AM
To: Derek Muller; Jamin Raskin
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] The Electoral College & NPV

 

Let me briefly supplement (or slightly disagree with) Derek's post by saying
that an individual state legislature's unilateral choice to use the national
popular vote to determine who its electors will be arguably violates the
requirement that the state appoint its electors. The national popular vote
does not represent the voice of the state. The Court's rationale in
McPherson v. Blacker requires us to ask whether the method chosen is a
method by which the state appoints its electors, in the sense that the
appointment reflects the voice of the state.

 

Mark

 

Mark S. Scarberry

Professor of Law

Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120830/ffe8a9ec/attachment.html>