# The proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 3, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797 "2018-01-03T14:23:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/281 "2018-01-10T21:04:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > When you can find such constraints after doing some work of your own, do please let us know. I named several specific constitutional constraints on how states choose electors. You have been pretending they don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/282 "2018-01-10T21:11:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I named several specific constitutional constraints on how states choose electors. You have been pretending they don’t exist. You have found some things that you wish applied, but do not. Hint: Prohibitions on states forming military and diplomatic alliances of their own have nothing to do with elector selection. But the part that explicitly assigns elector selection to the state legislatures somehow, to you, does \*not \*apply. That is … remarkable. Maybe \*\*John \*\*should be asking \*you \*if anyone but him agrees. Any “pretense” here is your own. Continuation of your “Compact compact compact” claim is not driven by fact or reason. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/283 "2018-01-10T21:18:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You have found some things that you wish applied, but do not. Hint: Prohibitions on states forming military and diplomatic alliances of their own have nothing to do with elector selection. But the part that explicitly assigns elector selection to the state legislatures somehow, to you, does \*not \*apply. That is … remarkable. Maybe \*\*John \*\*should be asking \*you \*if anyone but him agrees. > > Any “pretense” here is your own. Continuation of your “Compact compact compact” claim is not driven by fact or reason. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me that Art II sec 1 is limited by other constitutional provisions. > [@Justice Black](#): > > The State also contends that it has absolute power to put any burdens it pleases on the selection of electors because of the First Section of the Second Article of the Constitution, providing that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” to choose a President and Vice President. There of course can be no question but that this section does grant extensive power to the States to pass laws regulating the selection of electors. **But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.** For example, Congress is granted broad power to “lay and collect Taxes,” [Footnote 2] but the taxing power, broad as it is, may not be invoked in such a way as to violate the privilege against self-incrimination. [Footnote 3] Nor can it be thought that the power to select electors could be exercised in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands that specifically bar States from passing certain kinds of laws. Clearly, the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments were intended to bar the Federal Government and the States from denying the right to vote on grounds of race and sex in presidential elections. And the Twenty-fourth Amendment clearly and literally bars any State from imposing a poll tax on the right to vote “for electors for President or Vice President.” Obviously we must reject the notion that Art. II, § 1, gives the States power to impose burdens on the right to vote where such burdens are expressly prohibited in other constitutional provisions. We therefore hold that no State can pass a law regulating elections that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that “No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” Thread over. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/284 "2018-01-10T21:20:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > When you can find such constraints after doing some work of your own, do please let us know. This has already been done multiple times, but you hand-wave them all away. In fact, you’ve hand-waved away the idea that an amendment is meant to change the constituent even though that is the very definition of what an amendment is and does. My thinking is that if we can find someone else who shares your views, that person might be better able to explain them. Alternatively, if no one steps up, then perhaps you will be made aware that no one else on this MB does share those views, and you will at least see that they are not clear and obvious, even if you still insist on holding to them. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/285 "2018-01-10T21:30:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me that Art II sec 1 is limited by other constitutional provisions. > > Thread over. Dicta in a case about George Wallace’s party getting a ballot listing - as in, Ohio couldn’t ban him from having a slate of electors. All of that, mind you, is based on Ohio establishing state-level popular vote as the method for selecting electors, but that is not a Constitutional requirement. IOW keep looking. **John** , \*start \*looking. Actually, you can start by re-reading the thread, much more slowly, so you’ll gain some idea of what has actually been said in it. You’re quite a bit short on that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/286 "2018-01-10T21:58:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **John** , \*start \*looking. Actually, you can start by re-reading the thread, much more slowly, so you’ll gain some idea of what has actually been said in it. You’re quite a bit short on that. As much as I appreciate your advice, I think I’ll pass on taking it. I’m OK with waiting for other posters to come into the thread and take up your cause. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/287 "2018-01-10T22:18:24Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Dicta in a case about George Wallace’s party getting a ballot listing - as in, Ohio couldn’t ban him from having a slate of electors. All of that, mind you, is based on Ohio establishing state-level popular vote as the method for selecting electors, but that is not a Constitutional requirement. > > IOW keep looking. You aren’t understanding the context. I found someone else, aside from you, that argued that Art II sec 1 was an unlimited power: the State of Ohio in 1968. And that argument was completely rejected. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/288 "2018-01-10T22:21:48Z")
BTW, perhaps the wikipedia article is more approachable in terms of understanding the decision that **Ravenman** quoted: > [@](#): > > [Opinion of the Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Rhodes#Opinion_of_the_Court) > On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in the Socialist Labor Case, but modified the District Court’s judgment in the American Independent Party Case, granting that party the right to have its name printed on the ballot. Black wrote for a 5-4 court. > > The Court held that defendants had failed to show any “compelling interest” that would justify imposing heavy burdens on the right to vote and to associate. The totality of the Ohio restrictive laws imposed a burden on voting and associational rights, which the court held was invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. > > It was held that (1) the equal protection clause was violated by the Ohio election laws, which made it virtually impossible for any party except the Republican and Democratic Parties to qualify on the ballot, and (2) the American Independent Party was, and the Socialist Labor Party was not, entitled to have its name placed on the ballots, because the former promptly sought injunctive relief in the United States Supreme Court, thus avoiding interruption of the state’s electoral process, and the latter delayed in seeking such relief. > > Held: > > 1. The controversy in these cases is justiciable. P. 28. > > 2. State laws enacted pursuant to Art. II, § 1, of the Constitution to regulate the selection of electors must meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. pp. 28–29. > > [etc.] Emphasis added ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/289 "2018-01-10T22:39:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Subject to the constraints of the Alabama \*state \*constitution, yes. Why would you think otherwise? Because it is an astounding proposition. Putting aside the common sense that the Supreme Court would never go for it, you are reading the single provision in isolation. > [@Constitution](#): > > 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. You have quoted this at length. However, there are other portions of the Constitution that have to be read along with this. This is not the end of the matter full stop. The 14th amendment also applies. Think of it this way. Congress has the power “to provide and maintain a Navy.” If Congress said no blacks or Catholics in the Navy, it would seem that your argument is that Congress has an absolute right to provide for the Navy as it sees fit, the other parts of the Constitution be damned. It makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/290 "2018-01-10T22:55:29Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > IOW keep looking. **John** , \*start \*looking. Actually, you can start by re-reading the thread, much more slowly, so you’ll gain some idea of what has actually been said in it. You’re quite a bit short on that. \*\*Jonathan Chance \*\*already cautioned you against being a jerk in post #236. I’m sure your disagreement with others isn’t based on anyone’s reading ability or failure to read the thread. To be more clear, knock off the jerkish condescension, including but not limited to telling people to re-read and at what speed. If you wish to comment about the moderation, do so in ATMB - you’ve exhausted your 1 freebie in post #237. This is the extent of my forbearance. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2018, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/291 "2018-01-11T08:09:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … If the total EV’s in the agreement drops below 270, then the states just go back to doing what they do now. Cite? I don’t see this case explicitly mentioned in California’s AB-459. I think it’s just another ambiguity for possible litigation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2018, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/292 "2018-01-11T12:35:34Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Cite? I don’t see this case explicitly mentioned in California’s AB-459. I think it’s just another ambiguity for possible litigation. Yeah, the compact has a provision that explicitly says states can withdraw at any time, and one would presume they would all do so if the EV count of participants dropped below 50%. But that is voluntary, and if some state didn’t do so, that would certainly invited litigation. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2018, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/293 "2018-01-11T13:38:13Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Cite? I don’t see this case explicitly mentioned in California’s AB-459. I think it’s just another ambiguity for possible litigation. [Here. PDF page 21](http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/eve-4th-ed-ch6-web-v1.pdf). > [@](#): > > The second clause of Article IV of the compact permits a state to withdraw from the compact but provides for a “blackout” period (of approximately six months) restricting withdrawals: > “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.” > > The purpose for the delay in the effective date of a withdrawal is to ensure that a withdrawal will not be undertaken—perhaps for partisan political purposes—in the midst of a presidential campaign or in the period between the popular voting in early November and the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December. This restriction on withdrawals is warranted in light of the subject matter of the compact. > > The blackout period starts on July 20 of a presidential election year and would normally end on January 20 of the following year (the scheduled inauguration date). Thus, if a statute repealing the compact in a particular state were enacted and came into effect in the midst of the presidential election process, that state’s withdrawal from the compact would not take effect until completion of the entire current presidential election cycle. The language used in the compact tracks the wording of the 20th Amendment. > > The date for the end of the present President’s term is fixed by the 20th Amendment > as January 20; however, the 20th Amendment recognizes the possibility that a new President might, under certain circumstances, not have been “qualified” by that date. The blackout period in the compact ends when the entire presidential election cycle is completed under the terms of the 20th Amendment. Formatting cleaned up for readability. Yes, naturally there would be legal challenges, because that’s the American way. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2018, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/294 "2018-01-11T15:05:06Z")
That’s not what **septimus** was asking about-- where in the contract does it explicitly say that “If the total EV’s in the agreement drops below 270, then the states just go back to doing what they do now”. As I already noted, that says that it is possible for the states to “go back to doing what they do now”, but it doesn’t ensure that it does. Of course states can exit if they choose, even without that clause. If they can pass this legislation, they can rescind it. That clause actually attempts to put some limits on the exiting process, and could prevent some states from exiting if they did not have enough time to react to another state’s exit. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2018, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/295 "2018-01-11T16:04:14Z")
I feel sure that \*\*septimus \*\*is capable of saying for himself if his question has been answered. If you have a different one yourself, well, there’s the link. Have at it. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2018, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/296 "2018-01-12T13:25:06Z")
FWIW, I take **John Mace** ’s side in the latest micro-dispute. That dispute is of much less interest than _the way it was just addressed here_. This all tends to support my worry: NPVIC doesn’t turn the election over to the _ **People** _; it turns it over to the _ **Lawyers** _. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/297 "2018-01-14T00:49:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not what **septimus** was asking about-- where in the contract does it explicitly say that “If the total EV’s in the agreement drops below 270, then the states just go back to doing what they do now”. As I already noted, that says that it is possible for the states to “go back to doing what they do now”, but it doesn’t ensure that it does. Of course states can exit if they choose, even without that clause. If they can pass this legislation, they can rescind it. That clause actually attempts to put some limits on the exiting process, and could prevent some states from exiting if they did not have enough time to react to another state’s exit. Further, what would happen if a State withdrew in violation of the agreement? Would another State have standing to challenge the violation in court? Would a candidate? An elector? What would be the remedy? Money damages? Specific performance? What would be the specific performance? Wouldn’t the prohibition of a withdrawal from the compact within the 6 month period violate a State’s constitutional power to select its electors in a manner it chooses? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/298 "2018-01-14T01:07:07Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Further, what would happen if a State withdrew in violation of the agreement? Would another State have standing to challenge the violation in court? Would a candidate? An elector? If you want to make it really interesting suppose two states are in the compact, and state A has an election cert date earlier than state B. State A certifies its electors per the compact, and then state B decides to withdraw. > [@](#): > > What would be the remedy? Money damages? Specific performance? What would be the specific performance? > > Wouldn’t the prohibition of a withdrawal from the compact within the 6 month period violate a State’s constitutional power to select its electors in a manner it chooses? Heh. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/299 "2018-01-14T16:49:30Z")
And I think we have found the reason that interstate compacts are forbidden in the constituion. There is no way for one state to hold another state accountable to a compact that they signed on for. That’s why congress would need to be involved, so that there is an entity that can hold the states accountable to hold up their end of the deal. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/300 "2018-01-15T14:32:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And I think we have found the reason that interstate compacts are forbidden in the constituion. The context there is all about military and diplomatic alliances, forbidding them outside the structure of the federal government, which would be essentially meaningless if they were permitted. So no. > [@](#): > > There is no way for one state to hold another state accountable to a compact that they signed on for. There doesn’t have to be. There only needs to be a defined course of action in response. There’s no constitutional requirement that multiple slates of electors be chosen by parties and pledged prior to Election Day. That’s by statute only, and is overridden when the Compact (it’s a word, get over it) kicks in. The state’s electors, who can be a single slate pledged to follow the law, just need to know how they’re legally required to vote on December 19. If enough states weasel on their own Compact laws to get the total EV count below 50%, they do what they do now. But no state needs to hold another accountable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797.md?page=16)