Posted on 04/12/2007 8:41:31 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The governor of Maryland did Tuesday what the governor of California should have done last fall: sign a bill making his state the first to begin junking the electoral college.
At least, chuck the electoral college as it has evolved. Circumvent the relic, render it moot and elect America's president by popular vote.
The bill makes Maryland the first state to sign an interstate compact that obligates each signatory to cast all its electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The compact won't go into effect unless it's signed by enough states to comprise a majority of the electoral college vote.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed an identical bill after studying the measure for, it seemed, about three seconds. "It disregards the will of a majority of Californians," he said in his veto message, pointing out that the state's electoral votes could be awarded to a candidate most Californians didn't favor.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
You can bet that if a Republican gets a majority of votes, Maryland will ignore this law and cast our Electoral College votes for the Democrat who will surely win here.
But one can always count on the "Progressives" to do an end run around the Constitution, rather than do the honest thing.
I'm no expert on Federal Election Law, but I doubt that Maryland's scheme would hold up to a challenge.
The MD legislature should just cut to the chase and cease to have popular election of Electors. Then they can just appoint the Electors themselves. Hard to imagine that the MD leg would ever be anything other than rat-controlled so they could guarantee MD EVs to the rats in perpetuity.
This would be entirely constitutional too.
Count me in as the one who said, in 2000, that the Dems were going to cheat all across the country. The ‘popular vote’ is so easily manipulated that I doubt that any Republican would manage a win anywhere ever again.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
But, facts and realities don't get in the way of a demorat movement.... witness global warming.
this will never hold up but in omalley’s mind... disenfranchisement of the voter is too obvious to any self-righteous maryland court and will not hold water...
there will be no need though to implement a lawsuit, the dream of a 2000 redo will only hurt the dems...
teeman
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.
If Maryland chooses to appoint electors based on the outcome of the popular vote.......they may be within their rights..........
Interesting.
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.
If Maryland chooses to appoint electors based on the outcome of the popular vote.......they may be within their rights..........
Interesting.
So what if one state decides not to publish a popular vote total? For example, they don't count the absentee ballots unless the race is close enough that they'll make a difference. Can Maryland force that state to violate its own election laws just so the "popular vote winner" can be know? If that state refuses, and the popular vote is not know, how will Maryland allocate its electors? By its own popular vote? But they told the voters a different story, that their electors would not be determined by Maryland's votes.
If there's popular vote confusion and one key state decides to allocate its electors based on its own popular vote, then the compact falls apart because there aren't 278 electoral votes being decided by the national popular vote anymore. Again the voters went to the polls under false pretenses and that would be contestable.
Perhaps Maryland will develop a finite-state machine to inform the voters what they are voting for. If A, B or C become the final state, you're voting for Maryland's electors. If D, E, F or G result, then you're not. Got that?
Your points are good and valid.
I’m not debating the practical ramifications of their decision.
My forst thought was simply, “Is this action constitutional?” It appears that it certainly could be.
The decisions made by the citizens of Maryland are theirs alone to make, good or bad.
Yeah, ditto!
You make a good point, this one might end up in court.....
bump
How about if they base the appointment of their electors on the popular vote of another state? That violates the first two clauses of the 14th A., and the guarantee of a Republican form of government for each State. Not to mention the Interstate agreement clause.
The governor of Maryland Lilmarty O’Mally once said George Bush was a greater threat to America than Osama Bin Laden.
Lilmarty and the hard core left running Maryland would eliminate a multiparty political system if they could get away with it.
It's technically not an agreement. Each state can claim to be acting unilaterally given these criteria.
I think this is clearly constitutional. The phrase "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is pretty clearcut.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.