In voting to end electoral college, Maryland dares to go where Schwarzenegger wouldn't

Los Angeles Times ^ | April 12, 2007 | George Skelton:

[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.

[WhiteGuy]

How about if they base the appointment of their electors on the popular vote of another state?

It is unclear if this is the case in MD, but if that were the case, this would probably end up in court.

[old republic]

It is very dangerous to create the possibility that could throw confusion into the electoral process because it could cause a huge dispute which could create a sense of illegitimacy (especially if there is a legitimate difference in legal interpretation of convoluted voting laws). In such an atmosphere of illegitimacy and extreme factional contention, multiple people claiming to be victors (especially if two intensely opposed factions view their candidate as being the rightfully elected candidate) could in a worst case scenario cause civil war. Maryland's law just creates to many constitutional and problems (especially since it has a trigger that could be triggered at any time (even after an election has already occurred but before the electoral college has voted. Could you imagine what would happen if in theory an election (like the 2000 election) was in which one candidate won the electoral college bud did not win the popular vote, but another state adopted Maryland's electoral college law the day after the election but before the electoral college voted and triggered these new electoral college rules and changed the winner of the election?)

[LexBaird]

It's technically not an agreement.

It most certainly is an agreement between States. Read the text of the bill. It specifically calls it such.

[LexBaird]

It is unclear if this is the case in MD, but if that were the case, this would probably end up in court.

Not unclear at all. The bill says that if the people of Maryland vote for a slate of electors sworn to Candidate A, but the popular vote of the other states is for Candidate B. then B will get the electors. Thus, Maryland's electors may easily be decided by the voters of another State. Would that end up in court? You betcha. Would it do so before causing a Constitutional crisis that makes Florida 2000 look minuscule? Not likely, since there has to be an after the fact suit by a person with legal standing.

[LexBaird]

Could you imagine what would happen if in theory an election (like the 2000 election) was in which one candidate won the electoral college bud did not win the popular vote, but another state adopted Maryland's electoral college law the day after the election but before the electoral college voted and triggered these new electoral college rules and changed the winner of the election?)

According to the bill, the 270 EV trigger has to be met in June (July? I can't remember exactly) before the election. Once triggered, a State cannot withdraw until after the next effected election.

[WhiteGuy]

ok.

Interesting.

[bmwcyle]

How to end the Republic.

[old republic]

Interesting, thanks for the information, but there is a serious problem with the alleged deadline in the law. The legislature’s powers are defined in its constitution and only an amendment to the constitution can change the defined powers of the legislature or restrict its powers. (Imagine, for example, the outrage if Congress passed a law changing the way that we vote for our representatives in the House, surely it would be held unconstitutional). In other words this law is unconstitutional under its state constitution because the law places a limitation on the power of the legislature without amendment to its state constitution. Thus it is conceivable that a legislature could ignore this laws provisions and change its electoral law even after the deadline.

[LexBaird]

FYI: Here is a link to info about the bill. You can D/L a PDF of the text from there.

[LexBaird]

The relevant sections re: your question:

“THIS ARTICLE SHALL GOVERN THE APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTORS IN EACH MEMBER STATE IN ANY YEAR IN WHICH THIS AGREEMENT IS, ON JULY 20, IN EFFECT IN STATES CUMULATIVELY POSSESSING A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORAL VOTES.

ARTICLE IV. OTHER PROVISIONS.

THIS AGREEMENT SHALL TAKE EFFECT WHEN STATES CUMULATIVELY POSSESSING A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORAL VOTES HAVE ENACTED THIS AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AND THE ENACTMENTS BY
SUCH STATES HAVE TAKEN EFFECT IN EACH STATE.

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.”

[zendari]

According to the bill, the 270 EV trigger has to be met in June (July? I can't remember exactly) before the election. Once triggered, a State cannot withdraw until after the next effected election.

I take what I said back. That said, this situation is interesting. I don't think 1 state has an ability to force another legislature to act in a certain fashion.