Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."
And while Article II, Section 1 ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...") does allow states to choose electors pretty much however they like, the words "Each state" (and not "States"/Every state"/Etc.) reflects that same intent to restrict interstate compacts.
SCOTUS has since narrowed that restriction to only those interstate compacts which would increase state power while decreasing federal power --- But this would clearly be the case for a compact to bypass the federal Constitution's required amendment process to make presidential elections by popular vote.
illegal...unconstitutional as you point out so well......, won’t be effective anyway..
its all a publicity stunt trying to make HilLIARy look better on a post-mortem basis
The truth is that Shrillary did not “win” the mythical popular vote. Right leaning candidates received at least 50.07% of the vote. This liberal compact would screw that majority.
But if shoe were on the other foot they would be demanding “justice” for “democratic” and “progressive” voters.
Because there hasn't been an actual case yet.
First, the compact only goes into effect once enough states totalling 270 agree to the compact. So, for now, it's moot. Secondly, those in the contact have to assert the compact before the GOP has grounds to legally challenge it. That can't happen until 2020 at the earliest and more likely in 2024.
Wait until one of these states goes Red and the state government tries to award its electoral votes to the Blue candidate. All he!! will break loose.
If there is a national popular then it should be a requirement for each citizen casting a ballot to prove their citizenship with proper documentation when registering. In addition a mandatory photo ID will be required upon entering the polling place.
Also did the founders of this idea think of the backlash when a states electoral votes are awarded to the candidate with the least number of votes?
Reminds me of the situation a few years back when Scott Brown was running for the senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. The Dems had previously changed the law from the governor appointing a replacement to a special election. Their rationale being that the people should do the selection. Of course this was during 2004 election and at that time there was a republican governor who would appoint Kerry’s replacement if he had been elected. Fast forward to Ted Kennedy passing away and now there was a democrat governor. Unfortunately for them they had pissed off so many of the voters with their hypocrisy that they had to allow the special election.
So Delaware decided to make.itself even more irrelevant?
The way I understand it, because the statement has to do with popular vote overall it does not tie it to a particular state. Therefore it’s not a compact of states.
I think they will come to regret it—sometime after the third or fourth Californian President.
This has got to be challenged before the Supreme Court. It is completely unconstitutional.
It would not increase the individual state’s power: in fact, it would nullify it altogether. So they’d don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
This is an unconstitutional, ridiculous and desperate scheme.
That said, I see it entirely backfiring on the Dims if they actually pull it off, as voters in these states will feel disenfranchised and not bother to vote, depressing the national vote numbers for the Rat candidate.