Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But wouldn't voters (8+ / 0-)

    in an NPV state which cast electors for a candidate who lost the popular vote in the state have an EP claim that their votes didn't end up counting?  I'm not a lawyer and don't have a dog in the fight: I'm genuinely curious.  Thanks.

    •  Not really (9+ / 0-)

      No because their votes did count for electing the president.  Weighed exactly equally to everyone else.  A Democrat in Texas and a Republican in Vermont would have exactly the same influence on the final popular vote tally, and hence the election of the President.

      I think you'd have to have some hybrid Equal Protection/Federalism claim that my vote should count more because I'm in a smaller state.  

      There are other issues with NPV, not the least of which is that it cannot take effect without Congressional approval.  Fat chance right now.

      •  If that's true then there should be (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PipeUp, Lujane, elwior

        a constitutional argument for NPV right now under the equal protection clause you bring up.  It would be just as valid as if used against the state by state nonsense the GOP is trying to pull.

        discrimination occurs only when the electoral system is arranged in a manner that will consistently degrade a voter's or a group of voters' influence on the political process as a whole.
        That's what occurs now under the EC, that means equal protection should annul the EC just like you say it should annul the right of legislators to choose how they choose electors.
      •  I'd add that while you or I might find (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chrismorgan, NM Ward Chair

        these things unconstitutional I highly doubt that the Supreme Court as currently composed will do the same.

        •  Kennedy's already on record agreeing with EP (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Old Lefty, VirginiaBlue, elwior

          How he would address this?  I think he could easily revert to pure, naked partisanship.  But at least in Vieth, he could have joined the majority and killed off political vote-dilution claims, but he didn't.  It's still 4-1-4, assuming that Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan all vote as their predecessors did.

      •  Why would congressional approval (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaBlue, Jim M

        be required for several states (more than 268 EV worth) to change they way they allocate their electoral votes?

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 02:22:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That darned Constitution again... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble, GeoffT, Seneca Doane
          It is possible that Congress would have to approve the NPVIC before it could go into effect. Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution states that
          No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.
          The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.[41] Every Vote Equal argues that the compact could never encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. Derek Muller, an opponent of the compact, argues that the NPVIC would nonetheless affect the federal system in such a way that it requires Congressional approval.[42] Regardless, supporters of the NPVIC plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states.[43]

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:22:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But NPV isn't an interstate compact (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WisePiper, Jim M

            It's a series of bills in individual states that determine how each state's EV's are cast.  It's not a treaty between them - states could unilaterally change their NPV participation statutes, not being bound to others to keep them.

            Sure there's co-ordination, but if that were a problem in itself then ALEC would be in deep doo-doo.

            Fake candidates nominated by the GOP for the recalls: 6 out of 7. Fake signatures on the recall petitions: 4 out of 1,860,283.

            by GeoffT on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 04:48:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's compact-ier than ALEC. (0+ / 0-)

              1. Are states bound to the NPV compact once in? I don't know.

              2. Unless they get out, however, then the NPV law, once passed, binds the state contingent on the actions of other states. "If all you other states do this, then we'll do it too." That's reasonably compact-y. This is what makes the NPV different from ALEC legislation.

              "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

              by HeyMikey on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:08:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  OTOH, the countervailing argument would be that (9+ / 0-)

      since the NPV states are awarding their EVs to the winner of the national vote, then every vote in the state counts equally toward that national vote.

      The problem, as the diarist notes, is that under the current scheme, not every vote within the state counts the same, and the will of the majority of the state can be thwarted by the machinations of the minority in that same state.

      We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

      by Samer on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:44:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site