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

Thu Jan 5 20:54:22 PST 2017

It's even more problematic in the status quo, which is true of so many of
the concerns raised about moving to a national popular vote. That is, using
Mark's formulation, "The possibility that a state could exclude from the
ballot a candidate for President who otherwise might win a majority in the
Electoral College is an additional reason to oppose our current system."

Rob Richie

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> Of course, if you had a constitutional amendment, Mark's fears could still
> be realized, unless the Amendment grew quite complex.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 4, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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 <(415)%20922-9779> 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”
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fp%3d90238&c=E,1,srG7p_tzrxtbQUUUa0PqJE_-hxUks3QGbpVShHtNZqtMeS6uGiChKDcTSpF-ADJHZAVux4MGCGX0cvLmNYhxzfHX_E-6wQwbEIOwkYuqKhxT&typo=1>*
> Posted on January 3, 2017 5:08 pm
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fp%3d90238&c=E,1,tVG6JpDpfLqw0VFpzJnihi677YFiz6HTSjBSCtCItZkybwyPu2HS-rZfv0PoxV6MPhJWgLS792Ipfhkz38sGmJ84GMavj1KIBCUFLmkon9Y,&typo=1>
>  by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,_SfURjXCYnv56DmZUbJVDqXIgWrWkBruAfLDzb4bRjgFsl2vyfhErfOtNmfmjuWI3fT5_asrLpaviQknEj06kuZggP0NqFJCnlkBwXc,&typo=1>
> WaPo reports.
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/03/blue-state-lawmakers-want-to-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot-unless-he-releases-tax-returns/?utm_term=.963a22a8e160>
> 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.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90238&title=%E2%80%9CBlue-state%20lawmakers%20want%20to%20keep%20Trump%20off%202020%20ballot%20unless%20he%20releases%20tax%20returns%E2%80%9D>
> Posted in ballot access
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fcat%3d46&c=E,1,KEHqsZBrrEuKLqDZXj2iqn4IJza_Sy1nPprc-DZ9YTV2QIaPshlGWZiSD-h6b0NFYyth1hP0vfF9YCc43GZgPUlCirtQw-UjX5mJt9j2dLZ7W3J9jYY,&typo=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election&c=E,1,o2lTS-j1AAhhtRWYzrY8LTqu6VkFnIMGuPG6befu1jYQXKAefe0jJTNS5q5wDuJCenlgYQFlM3uNbpV_c1c_2wCTKdLVK2s8-dsJhdXSWvUhd2U,&typo=1>
>
> <image001.png>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://department-
> lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election&c=E,1,
> fcag22o8llutG25C7dSN5g88hoUoBG7kef0U9NRPm_sG_
> bcCfUNjE3HUNmkaGZreImr4ELYVpU7_DmgXBypGiH47qGOpHnd6ONeJwcnrpRhVrA,,&typo=1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
*FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
<https://twitter.com/rob_richie>

Thank you for considering a *donation
<http://www.fairvote.org/donate> Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting
<https://youtu.be/CIz_nzP-W_c>!*
(Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170105/02a3a2dd/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/20170105/02a3a2dd/attachment.png>