I don't think that the claim here is quite as constitutional as one thinks. While the legislature may award its electors in the manner that the legislature of that state chooses, that legislature is bound to represent the interests of THAT state, e.g. CA. I think a strong constitutional argument could be made that the legislature lacks the power to abdicate their duty to the citizens of California and instead make the voters in all the other states the arbiter of what California would choose to do.
It makes a mockery of representative government.
In any event there are clear grounds to challenge this and the power of the state legislature to do this is not a slam-dunk.
“Art. I, Sec. 2 of the Constitution which grants state legislatures the plenary (and exclusive) power to award electors”
.
.
.
This is a thing.... I feel that soon, states are going to allow illegals to vote in federal elections. I know, may people say that is illegal, but there was a time when the Governors or the State Legislature would toss all of it’s electors to whomever they wanted.
I do wonder about the legality and how it would be challenged. I’m not a lawyer, but the SCOTUS is KEY in this, thank god Trump is my POTUS.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Explanation It has been enacted into law in 12 states with 172 electoral votes (CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). Map showing status in states. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 98 more electoral votes. It has passed at least one house in 11 additional states with 89 electoral votes (AR, AZ, CO, DE, ME, MI, NC, NM, NV, OK, OR) and has been approved unanimously by committee votes in two additional states with 26 electoral votes (GA, MO). The bill has recently been passed by a 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, 34-23 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House, and 26-16 in the New Mexico Senate.
The neglected, bonafide challenge you offer, that legislators cannot delegate their responsibilities (the basis for the Speaker's power to lock the U.S. House Chamber doors and to dispatch the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest unexcused Members to compel their participation in a Roll Call) there is also the Constitution's ban on Interstate Pacts that reduce the strength of States not included, without congressional approval.
It's the setting up of a trainwreck and another feast for the lawyers that could make the Florida Recount crisis look like a speed bump.
To which I might add a great number of further cautions, but...Basta!