[EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact / Article V

Sun Oct 28 12:36:21 PDT 2012

Article V (mentioned in Tara Ross's posting today) is the part of the U.S.
Constitution that deals with constitutional amendments. 

The National Popular Vote compact would not change the Constitution. It is
an exercise of an exclusive power already granted to the states under
section 1 of Article II of the Constitution, namely the power of each state
to appoint its own presidential electors in the manner it chooses. The
compact would change state winner-take-all statutes that came into
widespread use more than four decades after the Constitution was ratified.
None of these state winner-take-all statutes was originally adopted by means
of a federal constitutional amendment, and none have constitutional status.
All of these state statutes may be changed in the same manner that they were
adopted, namely by passage of a new state law changing the state's method of
appointing its own presidential electors. 

The operative part of the National Popular Vote compact says:

"The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall
certify the appointment in that official's own state of the elector slate
nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote
winner."  

This clause in the compact would govern the appointment by member states of
their presidential electors. 

As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker: 

"The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be
by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general
ticket [the winner-take-all rule] nor that the majority of those who
exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. It recognizes
that the people act through their representatives in the legislature, and
leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting
the object.. 

"In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong
exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States."

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Tara Ross [mailto:tara at taraross.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 8:30 AM
To: Gaddie, Ronald K.; Lillie Coney; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

You forgot Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention
for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all
Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in
three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be
proposed by the Congress . . .
.

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Gaddie,
Ronald K.
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 5:53 AM
To: Lillie Coney; 'law-election at UCI.edu'(law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit
under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." Article II, Sec. 1,
clause 2.

Then Article I, sec. 10, in the Compact Clause, that "No State shall,
without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State"

I leave it to the Constitutional scholars to hash this one out, but as to
method, it seems that playing poker and a vigorous round of
rock-papers-scissors are on the table as selection methods if states should
so chuse. The phrases 'rational' and 'popular' appear in no particular
proximity to these clauses.

Best,
~kg

Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
Editor, Social Science Quarterly
The University of Oklahoma
455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
Norman, OK  73019-2001
Phone 405-325-4989
Fax 405-325-0718
E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
http://socialsciencequarterly.org

________________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Lillie Coney
[coney at lillieconey.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:34 PM
To: 'law-election at UCI.edu' (law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: [EL] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

This idea gained popular debate status after the very close outcome of the
2000 Election. It is worth thinking about the real implications if it were
in place for a future election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

I have my doubts about it when this was proposed and after watching this
election year--it would further complicate what will be a hard fought
election to the very last vote.

Would it be Constitutional without an Amendment?
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election