By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — Democratic victories in the Nov. 3 midterm elections have brought an effort to change how the United States elects its president closer to implementation, with five newly Democratic-controlled state governments holding enough electoral votes to activate a national popular vote agreement.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has already been approved by 18 states and Washington, D.C., representing 222 electoral votes. The agreement would take effect when participating states collectively control at least 270 electoral votes, the number required to win the presidency.
According to The Washington Post, Democrats secured control of the governorship and both legislative chambers in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin during last week’s elections. Those five states collectively hold 61 electoral votes.
If all five joined the compact, the participating states would control 283 electoral votes, exceeding the threshold necessary to activate the agreement.
The proposal has also drawn attention from conservative legal analysts. In a Nov. 13 examination published by National Review, Inez Feltscher Stepman described the Democratic gains as providing the legislative opportunities needed to advance the compact, while identifying potential constitutional challenges.
Under the existing Electoral College system, each state receives electoral votes equal to its total representation in Congress, while Washington, D.C., receives three votes under the 23rd Amendment. Most states award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins their statewide popular vote.
Maine and Nebraska use a different allocation system that awards some electoral votes according to congressional district results.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would require participating states to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most votes nationwide, regardless of the result within each participating state.
The compact would not formally eliminate the Electoral College or change the constitutional process for appointing presidential electors. Instead, it would change how participating states select the candidates who receive their electoral votes.
Supporters have pursued the arrangement for approximately two decades as an alternative to amending the Constitution, which requires approval by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The proposal gained attention following the presidential elections of 2000 and 2016, when Republican candidates George W. Bush and Donald Trump won the presidency despite receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than their Democratic opponents.
Wisconsin Democratic state Sen. Kelda Roys said the current system permits candidates to win the presidency without receiving the most votes.
“There is no other election in this country where the person who loses can win the election, where the person who gets the most votes doesn’t actually win,” Roys told the Post. “And it’s fundamentally unfair and antidemocratic, small-d democratic.”
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro expressed support for the national popular vote approach following the midterm elections.
“The national popular vote makes sense,” Shapiro said during an appearance on the Pod Save America podcast.
He also emphasized his preference for determining presidential elections through the nationwide vote count.
“To me, the most important thing is that the will of the people is heard and respected, and I think popular vote is a way to do that,” Shapiro said.
Arizona Democratic state Sen. Priya Sundareshan, who is preparing to lead the chamber’s new Democratic majority, also endorsed the concept.
“This goes a long way to demonstrating that every vote matters, that the regular voter can make a difference with their vote,” Sundareshan said.
In Wisconsin, Democratic Gov.-elect David Crowley expressed support for ending the current Electoral College arrangement during an interview with The Associated Press.
“We can do away with” the Electoral College, Crowley said.
However, support among other incoming Democratic governors remains uncertain.
Nevada Gov.-elect Aaron Ford, who defeated the state’s incumbent Republican governor, has not committed to signing legislation joining the compact.
Ford spokesperson Tai Sims said the governor-elect’s immediate priorities involve reducing living expenses and addressing household affordability.
Nevada previously approved legislation joining the compact in 2019, when Democrats controlled the governorship and both legislative chambers.
Then-Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, vetoed the legislation, arguing that the arrangement “could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests.”
Michigan Gov.-elect Jocelyn Benson’s office did not respond to questions from the Post about whether she would support joining the compact.
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs also declined to state whether she would approve the proposal, despite having previously sponsored legislation supporting the national popular vote while serving in the state Legislature.
The five states where Democrats gained full control are not all required to join the compact. Four could supply enough electoral votes to reach the 270-vote threshold, depending on which states participate.
The compact’s supporters also face potential legal challenges.
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution restricts states from entering certain agreements or compacts with one another without congressional consent.
Legal scholars disagree over whether the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would require congressional approval. Supporters argue that states possess broad constitutional authority to determine how their presidential electors are appointed.
Opponents contend that coordinating electoral vote allocations through an interstate agreement raises constitutional questions that cannot be resolved solely through state legislation.
Daniel Lennington, vice president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said his organization would challenge the arrangement in court if the participating states reached the activation threshold.
“I’m going to side with the founders on the idea that there are certain things, certain structures and limitations, that we put on democracy,” Lennington told the Post.
“There’s not a lot of difference between a society which is run by an autocrat versus one that’s run by 51 percent of the people in the country that are able to do whatever they want whenever they want.”
University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller identified additional constitutional questions involving differences in state election procedures.
States maintain different rules governing voter identification, mail ballots, early voting and eligibility requirements. Challenges could argue that using a nationwide popular vote total while maintaining different state procedures raises equal protection concerns.
There is also an unresolved question over whether implementing the compact would require federal legislation and whether presidential approval would be necessary.
Although Democrats will control Congress beginning in January, support for the agreement among individual Democratic lawmakers has not been established.
Some national party officials are also evaluating whether the proposal could affect future presidential campaigns, particularly after Democrats made electoral gains in states previously considered reliably Republican.
The compact would change campaign incentives by making votes nationwide relevant to the allocation of electoral votes in participating states.
Supporters argue that presidential candidates would have stronger reasons to campaign outside a limited number of competitive states. Opponents maintain that candidates could concentrate their efforts in densely populated areas and reduce attention to smaller states.
The agreement has not yet reached the required threshold and is not scheduled to govern the 2028 presidential election under current law.
Its implementation would require additional states to approve the legislation and could be delayed or prevented by court rulings.
For now, the midterm election results have placed five additional states under Democratic control, creating opportunities for lawmakers to consider joining an agreement that remains 48 electoral votes short of activation.
Original article
Comments