National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status of NPVIC legislation in current legislative session: State shapes have been adjusted in the second map so that their sizes represent electoral strength.
Status of NPVIC legislation in current legislative session:

Image:NPVMapKey.png
State shapes have been adjusted in the second map so that their sizes represent electoral strength.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among U.S. states that would effectively end the electoral college system of presidential elections and replace it with a direct nationwide vote of the people. As of June 2008, this interstate compact has been joined by Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii; their 50 electoral votes amount to 19% of the 270 needed for it to take effect.

The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state the right to decide how to allocate its own electoral votes. States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades, although today almost every state awards its electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes statewide.

States joining the compact will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner until the compact has been joined by states representing a controlling majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 electoral votes). At that point, all of the electoral votes of the member states would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. With the national popular vote winner sure to have a decisive majority in the Electoral College, he or she would automatically win the Electoral College and therefore the presidency.

Contents

[edit] Background

Surveys suggest that most Americans support the idea of a popular vote for president. A 2007 poll found that 72% favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election, including 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of independent voters. [1] Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a direct vote.[2] The idea is popular for various reasons:

See also: Arguments against the Electoral College
  • The Electoral College may encourage campaigns to cater to voters in a few pivotal swing states, while sidelining the rest of the country. A study by FairVote, a voting rights organization, reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states got very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.[3] This may mean that swing state issues receive more attention while issues important to other states are largely ignored.[4][5][6]
  • The Electoral College may also hurt voter turnout. Most voters living outside the swing states know well in advance who is likely to win their state, which may decrease their incentive to go to the polls and vote. [4][6] A report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that 2004 voter turnout in competitive swing states grew by 6.3% from the previous presidential election, compared to an increase of only 3.8% in noncompetitive states. [7] A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the 10 closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country -- a 17% gap.[8]
  • There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Those who argue that it favors small states point out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations. [9][10] Others, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.[11][12][13]
  • The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore lost the election despite winning the popular vote. In 2004, Republican George W. Bush would have faced the same situation himself if there had been a 60,000 vote shift to John Kerry in Ohio.[4]

[edit] Details of the compact law

States join the compact by adopting it as a state law. The compact law[14] requires that:

  • The member state shall hold presidential elections by statewide popular vote.
  • After the election, the state's chief election official (usually the state Secretary of State) shall certify the number of popular votes cast in the state for each candidate and report those results to the other states by a specific deadline.
  • The chief election official shall then determine "national popular vote totals" for each candidate by adding up the vote totals reported by every state and the District of Columbia. (Each state is required to make official reports of vote totals to the federal government in the form of Certificates of Ascertainment.[15])
  • The state's electoral votes shall be awarded to the candidate with the greatest "national popular vote total."

The compact member states would give their electoral votes to the candidate with the greatest number of popular votes, even if no candidate has an absolute majority. In the extremely unlikely event of an exact tie in the national popular vote totals, each member state would award its electoral votes to the statewide winner, as is currently done in 48 states (Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes based on results at the congressional district level).

The compact specifies that it shall take effect only if it is law in states controlling a majority of electoral votes on July 20 of a presidential election year. States wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election. The compact would terminate in the event of the abolishment of the Electoral College.

[edit] History of the compact

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College by constitutional amendment has existed for some time (see Every Vote Counts Amendment). Though the electoral system has been modified by constitutional amendment in the past, such amendments are very difficult to pass because they require supermajorities in the House and Senate together with the support of three-fourths of the state legislatures.

The idea of an interstate compact based on Article II as an easier way to bring about a popular vote was first proposed in 2001 by brothers and law professors Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar. Unlike a constitutional amendment, the compact could theoretically come into force with as few as eleven member states, and may not need Congressional approval. Although Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except when a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.[16] Some scholars, however, believe that NPVIC would impact the federal system in such a way that it requires Congressional approval.[17]

[edit] 2006

The plan first gained widespread attention in 2006 when it was endorsed and publicized by National Popular Vote, a non-profit group with a bipartisan advisory committee including former US Senators Jake Garn, Birch Bayh, and David Durenberger, and former Representatives John Anderson, John Buchanan, and Tom Campbell. With backing from National Popular Vote, NPVIC legislation was introduced in six state legislatures in the 2006 session. It passed in the Colorado Senate, as well as both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The book Every Vote Equal was published by Yale University Press.

[edit] 2007

In 2007, NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 state legislatures. It was passed by legislative chambers in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey and North Carolina, as well as both houses of the Hawaii legislature, where it was prevented from becoming law by a veto from Governor Linda Lingle.[18] The bill was also passed by both houses in Maryland, which became the first state to join the compact when Governor Martin O'Malley signed it into law on April 10.[19]

[edit] 2008

New Jersey became the second state to enter the compact when Governor Jon S. Corzine signed the bill into law on January 13.[20] Illinois became the third state to join when Governor Rod Blagojevich signed it into law on April 7[21] and Hawaii became the fourth on 1 May after the legislature overrode a second veto from the governor[22].

Legislative chambers also passed the bill in Vermont (both houses, subsequently vetoed), [23] Washington,[24] and Maine (by a single vote in the senate[25]; the bill was subsequently defeated in the house[26]). The bill passed the Rhode Island state senate on May 27[27].

The bill has been under consideration in several additional states in 2008, and organizers anticipate all states will debate the bill in 2009.[28] Two measures titled "Presidential Electors. Allocation by National Popular Vote. Interstate Agreement. Statute" were filed as California ballot propositions, but failed get on the ballot [29].

[edit] Year-by-year status maps

Status of NPVIC legislation December 31, 2006 December 31, 2007 Current status
Image:NPVMapKey2.png
Participating states 0 1 (MD) 4 (MD, NJ, IL, HI)
Electoral votes 0 (of 270 needed) 10 (of 270 needed) 50 (of 270 needed)

[edit] List of states adopting a corresponding law

No. State Electoral votes Date of adoption Total electoral votes (percentage of 270 needed)
1 Maryland 10 April 10, 2007 10 (3.7 %)
2 New Jersey 15 January 13, 2008 25 (9.3 %)
3 Illinois 21 April 7, 2008 46 (17.0 %)
4 Hawaii 4 May 1, 2008 50 (18.5 %)

[edit] Debate

See also: Arguments for and against the Electoral College

The project has been supported by editorials in several newspapers, including the New York Times,[30] the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times[31], Boston Globe[32] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune[33] arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.[34] An article by Pierre S. du Pont, IV, a former governor of Delaware, in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal[35] has called the project an urban power grab that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run.

Some of the major issues are detailed below:

[edit] Small states and rural areas

Supporters of the compact argue that most small states are ignored under the current system because they are not swing states. They contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign in small, medium and large towns across the country, just as they currently do within competitive swing states. Critics of the compact counter that smaller states have fewer voters, which would lead candidates to ignore them and focus instead on states with large populations. They also argue that the large numbers of popular votes in urban areas would draw candidates away from rural issues and needs.[36][37]

[edit] Close elections and voter fraud

Opponents of the compact have suggested that a direct national election would raise concerns about election fraud. Pete du Pont states that in 2000, "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. 'Finding' three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing..." However, National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the incentive for fraud. They contend that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which an extremely small number of votes in any one of the numerous statewide tallies may determine the national winner.[38][39]

[edit] Nature of elections

Although supporters of the compact point out that direct election is already the method by which Americans elect their members of Congress, state leaders and local officials, opponents such as du Pont have argued that a direct popular vote in presidential contests could lead to a change in the current two party system. They contend that the difficulty of winning electoral votes under the current system may discourage third party and single-issue candidates from running, and therefore switching to a popular vote may lead more third party and single-issue candidates to enter the race.[40][41]

[edit] Electoral votes awarded to national winner, not state winner

Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii, have stated that they object to the compact because it would mean that their states' electoral votes may be awarded to a candidate who did not win statewide. Supporters of the compact have countered that under the popular vote system, the awarding of electoral votes would be effectively irrelevant; that giving the state's electoral votes to the national winner would be a mere symbolic formality with no political meaning, because the popular vote would have already decided the outcome.[42][43][44]

[edit] Constitutionality

Some law scholars have raised doubts about the constitutionality of the compact, arguing that it could be struck down by the courts for various legal reasons, or that it would not be constitutional without the consent of Congress.[17][45][46] Other constitutional law experts such as Maryland state senator Jamie Raskin, who co-sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, see no legal conflict and count themselves among the compact's most ardent supporters.[47] In fact, both of the compact's original authors, Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar, are experts in constitutional law. Of course, Congress could moot this question by consenting to the compact.

[edit] State-by-state status

EV = Number of electoral votes

State EV Year Bill(s) Lower house Upper house Governor Status
Alabama 9 2007 HB 192 introduced[48] — — not voted on
Alaska 3 2007–08 SB 138 — introduced[49] — not voted on
Arizona 10 2007 HB 2297, SB 1451 died in committee[50] died in committee[51] — not voted on
2008 SB 1370 — introduced[52] — not voted on
Arkansas 6 2007 HB 1703 passed[53] died in committee[53] — not voted on
California 55 2005–06 AB 2948 passed[54] passed[54] vetoed[54] failed
2007–08 SB 37 introduced[55] passed — pending
Colorado 9 2006 SB 06-223 died in committee[56] passed — not voted on
2007 SB 07-046 died in committee[57] passed[57] — not voted on
Connecticut 7 2007 HB 6000, SB 42 died in committee[58] introduced[59] — not voted on
District of Columbia 3 — none (congressional legislation) — — — no bill introduced
Delaware 3 — none[60] — — — no bill introduced
Florida 27 2007 SB 2568 — died in committee[61] — not voted on
Georgia 15 2007–08 HB 630 introduced[62] — — not voted on
Hawaii 4 2007 HB 234[63], SB 1956 passed[64] passed[64] vetoed[64] failed
did not override veto[64] overrode veto[64]
2008 HB 3013, SB 2898 passed[65] passed[22] vetoed[22] passed
overrode veto[22] overrode veto[22]
Idaho 4 — none till 2009[66] — — — no bill introduced
Illinois 21 2005–06 HB 5777, SB 2724 introduced[67] introduced[68] — not voted on
2007–08 HB 858 [69], HB 1685, SB 78 passed[21] passed[21] signed[21] passed
Indiana 11 2007 HB 1807 introduced[70] — — not voted on
Iowa 7 2007–08 SF 2008 — introduced[71] — not voted on
Kansas 6 2007–08 SB 150 — failed[72] — failed
Kentucky 8 2007 HB 550 died in committee[73] — — not voted on
Louisiana 9 2006 HB 927 introduced[74] — — not voted on
Maine 4 2007–08 LD 1744 indef. postponed[26] passed[25] — failed
Maryland 10 2007 HB 148, SB 634 passed[75] passed[75] signed[75] passed
Massachusetts 12 2007–08 HB 710, SB 452 passed committee[76] passed committee[77] — pending
Michigan 17 — none — — — no bill introduced
Minnesota 10 — none[78] — — — no bill introduced
Mississippi 6 2007 SB 2284 — died in committee[79] — failed
Missouri 11 2006 HB 2090 introduced[80] — — not voted on
2007 HB 289 introduced[81] — — not voted on
Montana 3 2007 SB 290 — failed[82] — failed
Nebraska 5 — none[83] — — no bill introduced
Nevada 5 2007 AB 384 introduced[citation needed] — — not voted on
New Hampshire 4 2007–08 HB 1454 inexpedient to legislate (committee)[84] — — not voted on
New Jersey 15 2006–07 A 4225, S 2695 passed[85] passed[85] signed[85] passed
New Mexico 5 2007 SB 666 — introduced[86] — not voted on
New York 31 2005-06 A11563 introduced[citation needed] — — not voted on
2007–08 A03883, S7582 introduced[87] introduced[88] — pending
North Carolina 15 2007–08 H1645, S954 introduced[89] passed[90] — pending
North Dakota 3 2007 HB 1336 failed[91] — — failed
Ohio 20 2008 HB 524 introduced[92] — — pending
Oklahoma 7 2007–08 HB 1466 introduced[93] — — pending
Oregon 7 2007 HB 3325 died in committee[94] — — not voted on
Pennsylvania 21 2007–08 HB 1028 introduced[95] — — pending
Rhode Island 4 2007 H 5976, S 0201 died in committee[96] died in committee[97] — not voted on
2008 H 7707, S 2112 scheduled[27] passed[27] — pending
South Carolina 8 2007–08 H 4201 introduced[98] — — pending
South Dakota 3 2007 HB 1295 introduced[99] — — not voted on
Tennessee 11 2007–08 HB 841, SB 811 withdrawn[100] introduced[101] — failed
Texas 34 2007 HB 3566, SB 520 withdrawn[102] introduced[103] — not voted on
Utah 5 2007 HB 346 died in committee[104] — — not voted on
Vermont 3 2007–08 H 373, S 270 passed[23] passed[23] vetoed[23] failed
Virginia 13 2007 HB 2742, SB 864 introduced[105] introduced[106] — not voted on
Washington 11 2007–08 HB 1750, SB 5628 died in committee[107] passed[24] — failed
West Virginia 5 2007 HB 3247, SB 482 introduced[108] introduced[109] — not voted on
2008 SB 52 — failed[110] — failed
Wisconsin 10 2007–08 AB 313 died in committee[111] — — not voted on
Wyoming 3 2007 HB 190 introduced[112] — — not voted on

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University: Survey of Political Independents. Retrieved on 2008-06-11.
  2. ^ Americans Have Historically Favored Changing Way Presidents are Elected. Gallup (2000-11-10). Retrieved on 2008-06-11.
  3. ^ Who Picks the President?. FairVote. Retrieved on 2008-06-11.
  4. ^ a b c New York Times editorial (2006-03-14). Retrieved on 2008-06-11.
  5. ^ Denver Post editorial (2007-04-09). Retrieved on 2008-06-11.
  6. ^ a b Hill, David; McKee, Seth C. (2005). The Electoral College, Mobilization, and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election. American Politics Research 33:700-725. Retrieved on 2008-06-11.
  7. ^ Committee for the Study of the American Electorate (2004-11-04). Retrieved on 2008-06-12.
  8. ^ Lopez, Mark Hugo; Kirby, Emily;Sagoff, Jared (July 2005). The Youth Vote 2004. Retrieved on 2008-06-12.
  9. ^ David Broder, on PBS Online News Hour's Campaign Countdown (2000-11-06). Retrieved on 2008-06-12.
  10. ^ "Electoral College should be maintained", Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 2007-04-29. Retrieved on 2008-06-12. 
  11. ^ Timothy Noah (2000-12-13). Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection". Slate.com. Retrieved on 2008-06-12.
  12. ^ Longley, Lawrence D.; Peirce, Neal (1999). Electoral College Primer 2000. Yale University Press. 
  13. ^ Levinson, Sanford (2006). Our Undemocratic Constitution. Oxford University Press. 
  14. ^ National Popular Vote - Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
  15. ^ Responsibilities of the States in the Presidential Election. U.S. Electoral College. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
  16. ^ Every Vote Equal [1]
  17. ^ a b Derek T. Muller, The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, 6 Election L.J. 372 (2007)
  18. ^ National Popular Vote - Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
  19. ^ AP: Maryland sidesteps electoral college
  20. ^ New Jersey Rejects Electoral College Associated Press. January 13, 2008. CBS News.
  21. ^ a b c d Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB1685, 2008.
  22. ^ a b c d e Hawaii SB 2898, 2008.
  23. ^ a b c d The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.270). Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
  24. ^ a b Washington SB5628, 2007-08. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
  25. ^ a b Ballot Access News report, April 2, 2008
  26. ^ a b Maine LD 1744, 2008.
  27. ^ a b c Rhode Island Bills Status (7707, 2112), 2008.. Retrieved on 2008-06-07.
  28. ^ TheHill.com - Popular-vote plan nears crucial period
  29. ^ Initiative Update
  30. ^ New York Times editorial
  31. ^ Los Angeles Times editorial
  32. ^ Boston Globe editorial
  33. ^ Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial
  34. ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial
  35. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  36. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  37. ^ NPV Memo
  38. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  39. ^ NPV Memo
  40. ^ Wall Street Journal article
  41. ^ New Yorker column
  42. ^ SB-37, quoted on page 8
  43. ^ Honolulu Star-Bulletin
  44. ^ Hawaii Reporter piece
  45. ^ David Gringer, Columbia Law Review
  46. ^ Peter Shane, Moritz School of Law, OSU
  47. ^ American University constitutional law professor & Maryland state senator Jamie Raskin
  48. ^ Alabama HB 192, 2007 text. Retrieved on 2008-06-04.
  49. ^ Alaska SB 138, 2007 status. Retrieved on 2008-06-04.
  50. ^ Arizona HB 2297, 2007 status. Retrieved on 2008-06-04.
  51. ^ Arizona SB 1451, 2007 status. Retrieved on 2008-06-04.
  52. ^ Arizona SB 1370, 2008 status. Retrieved on 2008-06-04.
  53. ^ a b Arkansas 86th General Assembly (HB1703). Retrieved on 2008-06-06.
  54. ^ a b c California AB 2948, 2005-06. Retrieved on 2007-01-28.
  55. ^ California SB 37, 2007-08 Senate Bill - History. Retrieved on 2008-06-04.
  56. ^ Colorado SB06-223, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
  57. ^ a b Summarized History for Bill Number SB07-046.
  58. ^ Connecticut Proposed HB 6000, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
  59. ^ Connecticut Substitute SB 42, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
  60. ^ Delaware Legislature website, search results for "interstate".
  61. ^ Florida SB 2568.
  62. ^ Georgia HB 630.
  63. ^ Hawaii HB 234, 2007.
  64. ^ a b c d e Hawaii SB 1956, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-06-06.
  65. ^ Hawaii HB 3013, 2008.
  66. ^ Idaho State Legislature - 2008 Session Information - 2008 Session Dates.
  67. ^ Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5777, 2006.
  68. ^ Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB2724, 2006.
  69. ^ Illinois HB 858, 2008.
  70. ^ House Bill 1807, Indiana, 2008.
  71. ^ Bill History for SF 2008, Iowa, 2007-08.
  72. ^ Kansas Legislature Bill Tracking (150). Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
  73. ^ Kansas HB 550, 2007.
  74. ^ Louisiana HB 927, 2006.
  75. ^ a b c Maryland HB148, 2007.
  76. ^ Massachusetts H 678, 2007-08.
  77. ^ Massachusetts S 445, 2007-08.
  78. ^ Minnesota State Legislature.
  79. ^ Mississippi SB2284, 2007.
  80. ^ Missouri HB 2090, 2006.
  81. ^ Missouri HB 289, 2007.
  82. ^ Montana HB290, 2007.
  83. ^ Nebraska Legislature - HOME
  84. ^ NH General court - Bill status (HB1454). Retrieved on 2008-06-09.
  85. ^ a b c New Jersey Legislature (Bill A4225 from Session 2006-07).
  86. ^ New Mexico SB 666, 2007.
  87. ^ New York bill A3883, 2007.
  88. ^ New York bill S7582, 2008.
  89. ^ North Carolina House Bill 1645, 2007-08.
  90. ^ North Carolina Senate Bill 954, 2007-08.
  91. ^ North Dakota HB1336, 2007.
  92. ^ Ohio HB 524, 2008.
  93. ^ Oklahoma Legislature, current status of bills.
  94. ^ Oregon State Legislature (House Bill 3325).
  95. ^ Pennsylvania House Bill 1028, 2007-08.
  96. ^ Rhode Island House Bills 5900-6199, 2007.
  97. ^ Rhode Island Senate Bills 1-299, 2007.
  98. ^ 2007-2008 South Carolina Bill 4201, 2007-08.
  99. ^ South Dakota Bill History Report, 2007.
  100. ^ Tennessee HB0841, 2007-08.
  101. ^ Bill Information for SB0811.
  102. ^ Texas HB 3566, 2007.
  103. ^ Texas SB 250, 2007.
  104. ^ Utah HB 346, 2007.
  105. ^ Virginia HB2742, 2007.
  106. ^ Virginia SB864, 2007.
  107. ^ Washington HB1750, 2007-08.
  108. ^ West Virginia HB 3247, 2007.
  109. ^ West Virginia SB 482, 2007.
  110. ^ Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » West Virginia Senate Committee Defeats National Popular Vote Plan.
  111. ^ Wisconsin AB 313, 2007-08.
  112. ^ Wyoming 2007 legislative status report.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links