Of course, things may change in November.

What about the Electors themselves. When we vote for President, we are actually voting for “Electors” who then go to Washington DC and place their vote. What is to prevent a California Elector from defying the California Legislature and voting for the person he was elected to vote for? (I hope that made sense.)

How would California enforce this?

The premise of the proposal is that a state would send electors based upon the nationwide popular vote and not based upon an election for electors.

As I have noted above, doing such disenfranchises the people of that state because the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to select the electors.

Then it cannot be a presidential election.

Article 2, section 1, paragraph 1 says that the state shall appoint electors to select the president, though not specifying how. The president is selected by the electors unless no candidate for president can attain a majority of electors, in which case the House decides. See the Art 2, and the 12th and 20th Amendments for specifics.

However, Amendments 12, 15, 19, 24, and 26 DO say how, and they all guarantee the right of the people to vote for the president. Therefore, as the president is elected by the electoral college, the people are guaranteed the right to select the electors. This latter also comes from Article 4, which guarantees every state a republican form of government.

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” One of those privileges and immunities is the right to vote and to have equal representation. All of which means that NO STATE can prohibit voting for presidential electors AND that NO STATE can disenfranchise voters by tossing out a candidate’s electors based upon another state’s results.

In other words, there cannot be a presidential election without the people voting for the electors, absent an amendment to the Constitution abolishing the electoral college.

The attempt to fudge it with a compact to award electoral college representation to the LOSING candidate within a state, is unconstitutional.

Congress can approve an amendment to abolish the electoral college and have the people elect the president directly, and send it to the States for ratification. Or 2/3 of the States can call a Constitutional convention to propose such an amendment.

How would California enforce this?

.

The college members usually cast a vote which matches the will of the voters they represent, however, – and this is the glory and majesty of it all- they are not statutorily bound to do so.

The College is essentially part of a system of checks and balances which helps eliminate a vast but ignorant population from hijacking the election process.

Our forefathers were brilliant and this system, for all the obvious reasons, still has merits today. Like you, they didn’t want their vote to be cancelled out by some Jerry Springer reject who doesn’t follow the issues, or who can’t read the name of the candidates, or figure out how to put a check in the box next to the candidate they want to elect.

Ignoring the results of a presidential election in a state, and substituting electors based upon the results from other states for “Candidate B” is disenfranchising the voters — the majority whom elected the electors for “Candidate A.”

You are overlooking a subtlety of the procedure here.

There would be no election held for electors, so nobody’s votes for the electors of “Candidate A” would be overturned. The voters would instead be expressing their preference for the Presidential/VP candidates themselves. The election would be fundamentally different, in that the voters are not choosing electors but expressing a preference for a presidental ticket. It is a subtle difference, but an important one.

I agree it violates the spirit of the Constitution, but it is cleverly worded not to violate the letter, unfortunately.

Article 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Ignoring the results of a presidential election in a state, and substituting electors based upon the results from other states for “Candidate B” is disenfranchising the voters — the majority whom elected the electors for “Candidate A.”

It is (1) denying the voters who voted for “A” equal protection of the law by OVERTURNING their majority on the basis of the results in other states.

(2) It is a clear abridgement of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” by tossing their vote out based upon what happens in another state.

The fundamental “privilige” in a Republic is the right to vote for representation.

The 14th Amendment guarantees that the people in each state shall be treated equally, not just in a state, but in all states. Any law that overturns the voters choice in a state based upon the results of the popular vote from other states, is a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

Blatantly unconstitutional as proposed. It violates the 12th and 14th Amendments.

I think that is a big part of the idea. Suppose there’s another election where one side wins the popular vote, and the other (would have) won the electoral vote, apart from this “compact”.

Who wins then? The courts will pick the President.

I think that’s largely what the moonbats want – as many avenues to contest and overturn unfavorable election results as possible.

I would like to believe this compact was unconstitutional, but I don’t see how Amendment XIV applies. The only possible relevant section is #2, which says in part:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States [...] is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, [...] or in any way abridged, [...] the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

If the compact is ratified, California will not hold an election for Presidential electors. Instead they will hold a “statewide popular vote” for the presidential candidates themselves. As directed by the legislature (through approval of the compact), the election authorities would then certify the electors of the candidates who received the most popular votes nationwide.

And Article I is pretty unequivocal about a legislature’s power to determine which electors are selected.

There would undoubtedly be litigation by the losing side if the election outcome was changed, but it looks like far from an easy argument to make to me (a non-lawyer, but reasonably well read on ConLaw).

It only happens about once every 100 years that the popular vote winner does not win the electoral college, however. So it would likely be awhile before this scam made a difference.

Suppose the compact is brought into force and, optimistically, that the Republican candidate in 2008 wins the popular and would have won the electoral tally without this compact. In that case, California’s GOP electors would still have to be appointed, which might produce a backlash even without affecting the outcome of the election.

But running a close presidential campaign in an atmosphere where you’re not sure whether the winner will be determined by electoral vote (as now) or popular vote (because the compact will undoubtedly be challenged in the courts by someone) sounds like a real nightmare. The first election, at least, after this thing goes into effect but before the legal issues are decided, will be an utter circus.

The Constitution says:

[Article 3, Section 2, paragraph 2] In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress can limit the scope of the Supreme Court by (1) severability and (2) specifing that a bill is off limits for judicial review, for example.

Ace is right that the Court took it upon itself to power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. But that didn’t stop Andrew Jackson from defying the court’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia. Jackson is quoted as saying: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” Though it is probable that he never actually put it quite that way, though he did disobey the court in point of fact.

Here’s why.

Point 1. The scheme requires that electors of one state are selected based upon THE RESULTS OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN OTHER STATES. This openly violates the 14th Amendment, specifically, equal protection under the law.

Point 2. This proposal REQUIRES a popular vote inside of California (and any “compact” state) in order to determine the popular vote totals. As long as there is an election, the 14th Amendment requires that the outcome be determined by majority vote. This includes the selection of electors for President.

Point 3. This does NOT preclude ‘proportional’ based electors being selected. The all or none method is method is not “sacred” though it is allowed under Article 1 and the 12th and 14th Amendments. But that is not the issue here. The issue is the possibility that the RESULTS OF A ELECTION BECOME REVERSED BASED UPON RESULTS IN OTHER STATES.

Point 4. While the Constitution, as originally written, does not required that an election by the people to select electors be held, Congress long ago passed laws requiring that electors be chosen in a presidential election. Further, the 15th, 19th and 24th Amendments protect the right of the people to vote for electors in Presidential elections. The relevant part of the US Code that governs presidential elections is in Title 3.

Point 5. Congress certifies the vote of the electoral college. Congress is NOT the servant nor the creature of the state legislatures. Congress is under no obligation to allow electors that do not represent the the voters or accept their results. The likelihood that a such an event would go unchallenged by the losing political party is nill.

To summarize, depriving the voters of a state the choice of HOW their chosen electors in the Electoral College are to vote is illegal and unconstitutional.

You know, our Founding Fathers were truly brilliant. They had the ability to foresee what would happen without an electoral college- the big cities would control everything.

NTWR

I agree. Not only would the population centers choose every President, but it would be much much easier to buy an election. You only need 1 more vote than the other side to take all the electoral. That is, you only need to buy or fake one more vote than the other side to buy all the electoral.

A Soros dream system.

This is a mini version of a straight national vote for President, it requires you to spread the fraud and work a bit harder, but a step up if you are a crook.

The big cities of the blue states are as crooked as Tamany ever was. The illegals have been set up with voter cards and a total lack of incentive to honor the system and play straight. Bums, winos, druggies, nutcases, medicaid nursing homes filled with alzheimer patients, and dead voters are the lifeblood of the big cities. They always come through for their masters.

Rural voters can skip the Presidential if this plan goes through.

I don’t care about the triggers put into this plan. It is a gift for the left if it goes through.

I like the current system. It somewhat corrals the area a population center can dominate disenfranchise.

The webmaster’s blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated, newest items at the top. Please click here to learn more about The Phoenix Project, then click here to see a selection of Old War Dogs merchandise. All sales proceeds go to support The Phoenix…

Just more proof that the California legislature is made up of idiots.

GT, what an obvious and painful reminder :(

In 20 years, even in Calif. the conservatives will outnumber the liberals: higher birth rate, Blacks moving back home and Latinos voting half and half, as they do now. It’s a myth that Latinos are a ‘natural’ constituency for the Left.

I can’t help but wonder how long it will be before someone realizes this and declares it to be another Rove scheme to disenfranchise illegal aliens from their right to vote.

.

This scheme is just another way for the libs to try and get rid of the electoral college, except without actually getting rid of it.

Still, the system has worked well. Tinker with it at your own risk.

I think that the plan requires that enough states, with sufficient electoral mojo, approve the popular vote distribution before the CA electors are required to vote according to the national popular vote.

National Popular Vote

The proposed interstate compact would not take effect until identical legislation is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (that is, 270 of the 538 electoral votes). Thus, the compact would only take effect when it can guarantee an Electoral College majority to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

2.) The Supreme Court will always have judicial review, it’s a logical extension of their judicial powers.

Congress: X is now illegal.
Supreme Court: That law’s unconstitutional.
Congress: Oh yeah, 3/5ths say it’s still illegal.
Supreme Court: Don’t care. We won’t convict anyone.
Guy arrested for X: Why yes, I think I will appeal.
Executive Branch: Exactly why should I arrest anyone when the charges will be thrown out?

I could see changing the terms for justices to some long period that’s less than lifetime and possible making it slightly easier to get rid of SC justices. (Man, if you thought the nomination process was rough now…) Anything else would essentially be amending the Constitution.

For instance, in Cali, the state would be run by LA (which it pretty much already is) but that would mean they would decide that all of the water in the state would go to them.

Write to the Governator, Caulifornians. He’s “seriously considering” this bill and has until September 30th to sign it.