[EL] Another Reason to Oppose the Nat'l Pop. Vote Compact

[Richard Winger]

That is not a reason to oppose the national popular vote pact.  The real function of the national popular vote pact is to get the country's attention for a national constitutional amendment to revise the electoral college.  If the pact gets extremely close to having enough states, the country will turn its attention to a constitutional amendment.  Such an amendment need not necessarily institute a national popular vote.  The Lodge-Gossett plan of 1950 preserves the relative advantage currently enjoyed by very low population states.  It abolishes human being electors and converts every state's electoral vote into a precise number with four places to the right of the decimal point.  It passed the US Senate in 1950 with over two-thirds.  It is not now on the nation's radar but it could be.  Another incentive for the country to think about reform is the fact that 10 presidential electors voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, although 3 of those 10 were replaced and their votes invalidated.  That issue is pending in federal court in 3 states and if the electors who want freedom prevail in court, that would be yet another incentive for reform.
A further reform should be a national standard on ballot access for presidential candidates.  The US and Switzerland are the only nations in the world in which the rules for national elections are set by each separate subdivision of the nation.
 Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147 

    On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 9:09 AM, Mark Scarberry <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:
 

  I'm on record as opposing the NPVIC. The possibility that a state could exclude from the ballot a candidate for President who otherwise might win the national popular vote is an additional reason to oppose it.

Mark 
Mark S. Scarberry 
Pepperdine University School of Law _____________________________
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 8:32 AM
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/4/17
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>

[snip]
 “Blue-state lawmakers want to keep Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns”Posted on January 3, 2017 5:08 pm by Rick HasenWaPo reports.The constitutionality of such requirements is uncertain.  The Supreme Court in US Term Limits v. Thornton and Cook v. Gralike prevented states from adding qualifications for congressional candidates through ballot access requirements.  If those cases applied here, it would be tough to argue that laws requiring presidential candidates to produce tax returns are constitutional as they would be adding to qualifications. However, those cases did not involve presidential elections, and perhaps state legislatures have much broader power under Article II.  I think it is an open question. Posted in ballot access 


 <!--#yiv3521763356 _filtered #yiv3521763356 {} _filtered #yiv3521763356 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3521763356 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv3521763356 #yiv3521763356 p.yiv3521763356MsoNormal, #yiv3521763356 li.yiv3521763356MsoNormal, #yiv3521763356 div.yiv3521763356MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv3521763356 a:link, #yiv3521763356 span.yiv3521763356MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3521763356 a:visited, #yiv3521763356 span.yiv3521763356MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3521763356 span.yiv3521763356EmailStyle17 {font-family:Calibri;color:windowtext;}#yiv3521763356 span.yiv3521763356msoIns {text-decoration:underline;color:teal;}#yiv3521763356 .yiv3521763356MsoChpDefault {font-family:Calibri;} _filtered #yiv3521763356 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3521763356 div.yiv3521763356WordSection1 {}-->
_______________________________________________
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/20170104/98f688f7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170104/98f688f7/attachment.png>