From the article:
[[ It has already passed in the House in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon. These states, plus New York, represent 107 votes. Combined with the others they are up to 242 votes. They need 270. ]]
What follows is a repost of something I put up on TOS on 8/21/10:
This issue will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
I predict that -- unless the current 5-4 conservative majority is changed through future appointments -- that NPV will be declared unconstitutional.
In that court case, the proponents of NPV will argue that under the Constitution, that the states [via their legislatures] have the choice of assigning presidential electors, and therefore the states are within Constitutional bounds by assigning electors based on a "national majority vote total."
The Supreme Court will disagree -- or more correctly, they will restrict and clarify how electors may be assigned per the Constituion.
Their opinion will state that yes -- states DO have a right to assign presidential electors in the manner that they see fit.
HOWEVER, when a state chooses to hold a statewide election in which voters vote for their choice of of electors, that that state must be bound by the decision of its voters, and to disregard and overrule the outcome of such election for ANY reason amounts to an unconstitutional disenfrancishement of those voters.
To clarify: if a state indeed wanted to choose electors based on "popular vote" in _other states_, yes, it has the Constitution right to do so -- SO LONG AS it DOES NOT have an in-state election by the voters of that state.
The choice will be up to each state:
1. Have an in-state election for electors, and be bound by the decision of the states "internal" vote, or
2. Abolish the in-state election and permit the state legislature to assign electors based on some tally of "the national popular vote" (such tally which must come from a vote elsewhere).
Simply stated -- if you're going to have an in-state election by the state's [resident] voters, you will be bound by the results.
Of course, states like Massachusetts will then be free to abide by NPV if they wish -- so long as they forbid _Massachusetts voters_ to participate IN the presidential election.
How many states are going to be willing to abolish in-state presidential elections?
To defeat NPV, our side must argue from the point of "disenfranchisement", perhaps using the Fourteenth Amendment ("equal protection of the laws") for support, along with the Voting Rights Act.
Yes, all the states that sign NPV have the right to assign their electors as they wish, but to do so, they must forego conducting a presidential "election" in their respective states.
Because, if they have an election, they are bound to abide by the RESULTS of the election -in their state-, as determined by the voters -in their state-.
As such, they cannot disregard the decision of their state's voters -- UNLESS they cancel the elections altogether.
Then, the legislature can assign the electors any way they wish.
It's worth noting that for years, southern states were able to prevent the votes of blacks from being cast, and by doing so preventing blacks from influencing the outcome of such elections. Hence, The Voting Rights Act. It's time to "turn the tables" on the left, and use the VRA to defeat "National Popular Vote", which is as overt an attempt to disenfranchise white voters, as were the literacy laws and other techniques used for years to do the same to blacks...