Nevada became the 14th state to adopt the popular vote pact. That's legislation that says that a state will assign its electors to the candidate that wins the national popular vote for president once a sufficient number of states have approved so as to constitute a majority of the electoral college. It's a backhanded way of amending the Constitution without actually meeting the requirements to do so.
The problem is that this compact is arguably unconstitutional. I keep waiting for the lawsuit to be brought against it.
The Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the requirement for each state to guarantee that the votes of each of its citizens are given equal weight. The popular vote compact does not honor that requirement. After all, if Nevada votes 60% for candidate A but the national vote goes 51% for candidate B, giving Nevada's electoral votes to candidate B (as the popular vote compact directs) would mean that the votes of the 40% for B in Nevada win out over the votes of the 60% majority.
Supporters of the popular vote compact say that the Constitution itself grants the state legislatures the right to pick the electors any way that they want. That is true, but then the 14th Amendment was passed. Remember, at the start of this nation, states could have a chamber in their legislature that was based upon area rather than population. You know, it was something like the US Senate. Then the 14th Amendment was passed and the Supreme Court said that state legislative seats had to be apportioned according to population. That "one person, one vote" rule is exactly the one that makes the popular vote compact unconstitutional.
It's not that a popular vote rule cannot be inserted into the Constitution. It is, rather, that a proper constitutional amendment is needed to do that. We may soon see an action for a declaratory judgment to strike the compact down before it goes any further.
The problem is that this compact is arguably unconstitutional. I keep waiting for the lawsuit to be brought against it.
The Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the requirement for each state to guarantee that the votes of each of its citizens are given equal weight. The popular vote compact does not honor that requirement. After all, if Nevada votes 60% for candidate A but the national vote goes 51% for candidate B, giving Nevada's electoral votes to candidate B (as the popular vote compact directs) would mean that the votes of the 40% for B in Nevada win out over the votes of the 60% majority.
Supporters of the popular vote compact say that the Constitution itself grants the state legislatures the right to pick the electors any way that they want. That is true, but then the 14th Amendment was passed. Remember, at the start of this nation, states could have a chamber in their legislature that was based upon area rather than population. You know, it was something like the US Senate. Then the 14th Amendment was passed and the Supreme Court said that state legislative seats had to be apportioned according to population. That "one person, one vote" rule is exactly the one that makes the popular vote compact unconstitutional.
It's not that a popular vote rule cannot be inserted into the Constitution. It is, rather, that a proper constitutional amendment is needed to do that. We may soon see an action for a declaratory judgment to strike the compact down before it goes any further.
No comments:
Post a Comment