Will Colorado change how it names its presidential electors?

[Frank]

@This Year's Model

If I have anything to contribute to the OP, as in polls, or any groundswell of opinion here on the amendment, I’ll pop back in and note it. Otherwise, I’m done here.

As promised, here’s a poll.

Poll respondents favor it, 47 percent for to 35 percent opposed.

Less than half those polled said they’d “definitely” support or oppose the measure - 22 percent for, 21 percent against. A combined 39 percent said they’d “probably” vote for or against it, and 18 percent were undecided.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

After further review, I’m retracting my earlier statement that this initiative is unconstitutional.

Article I of the Constitution grants state legislatures power over the “times, places, and manner” of Congressional elections in language very similar to that concerning “elector elections” in Article II. Since the “times, places, and manner” clause serves as the basis for state power over Congressional districting, it has been heavily litigated. Despite the fact that Article I appears to exclusively empower the legislature, SCOTUS has held redistricting to be an ordinary exercise in state lawmaking, subject to whatever constraints a state Constitution may impose in terms of gubernatorial veto (Smiley v. Holm), overrule by initiative or referendum (Ohio ex rel Davis v. Hildebrant), or judicial intervention (Colorado General Assembly v. Salazar, cert denied).

Under a parallel reading of Article II, this initiative would pass muster–at least for future elections. I’m still not convinced it can apply to 2004; this strikes me as a due process violation. See this article for additional discussion.

So it might pass, and it’s probably constitutional. This pig may yet fly after all.