New Mexico legislature votes to circumvent the Electoral College
I’ve written before about the drive to end the Electoral College. And I’m going to write about it again, because I think it’s very important and people need to become aware of what’s going on before it succeeds. Believe me, those pushing for this are very serious and very organized (as well as well-funded, I’m going to assume):
What [Democrats] want is for the extremely blue states of California and New York to decide the election, because that’s the way it would probably be if the Electoral College were to be eliminated. Before the 2016 election, you didn’t hear all that many calls from Democrats for the end of the EC, in part because the EC arrangement was seen to favor Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. Remember all the cries that Trump had no Electoral College “path” to victory? I certainly do.
But since Trump somehow managed to blaze such a path, much to their intense astonishment (and somewhat to mine, I must say), they want the Electoral College gone. And because there is little chance of a constitutional amendment to that purpose passing (probably not enough states would support it), they’ve found a way around that little impediment [the following quote is from the Times editorial]:
“There is an elegant solution: The Constitution establishes the existence of electors, but leaves it up to states to tell them how to vote. Eleven states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes, have already passed legislation to have their electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement, known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact, would take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes, currently 270, signed on. This would ensure that the national popular-vote winner would become president.”
Notice how far this movement has gotten without all that much fanfare, considering the enormous changes it would wreak on our entire political system. For example, this just happened, and it doesn’t seem to be that heavily covered:
New Mexico is the 14th state to move away from the traditional use of the electoral college in presidential elections. Yesterday, Governor Michelle Luján Grisham signed House Bill 55 for her state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. By so doing, the Governor agrees with New Mexico Democrat Party lawmakers to give all the state’s electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote. There were no New Mexico Republican lawmakers on board with the decision. The will of New Mexico voters would not be honored if they were to select a different candidate than the winner of the aggregated popular vote in the other NPVIC states. So far the NPVIC laws won’t go into effect. The states approving it must equal 270 electoral votes. With New Mexico’s alignment, there are now 189. Critics of the move away from the traditional use of the electoral college model claim there are constitutional problems with the compact and that if implemented, the end result would be that the most populous states such as California and New York could end up electing the U.S. president. NPVIC supporters deny the criticisms.
If this sort of thing were to pass only in blue states, it probably wouldn’t end up mattering much in terms of electoral results. But New Mexico is sometimes considered to be a swing state—although it’s been trending blue for quite a while.
And Ohio? That could be a big big deal. Ohio is a pivotal swing state that often has a big role in determining the outcome of an election. It’s hard to gauge how much support this has in Ohio, but it may not need all that much support if activists are energized by it and not enough other people realize what’s going on and what it means:
The proposed amendment was submitted to the attorney general’s office by Don McTigue, a Columbus election lawyer, who provided 1,000 signatures from Ohio voters. The signatures were collected by a Washington, D.C. canvasing outfit, but it’s not completely clear who all is behind the effort. Cleveland.com reported that McTigue “referred comment to Reed Hundt, a former Federal Communications Commission chair who is now chair and CEO of Making Every Vote Count, a non-profit pushing for a binding national popular vote.” Hundt declined to respond to Cleveland.com’s request for comment.
Making Every Vote Count is a 501(c)(3) organization registered in Washington, D.C., that is “dedicated to electing the president by a national popular vote,” according to the group’s website.
The Ohio Ballot Board has ten days to decide whether to approve the submitted ballot language and the attorney general must validate the signatures submitted with the petition. If approved, supporters will have until July 3 to collect 442,958 valid signatures (10 percent of the vote in the last gubernatorial election) from registered voters in 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties.
A ballot measure, of course, is the worst possible way to change a law. The outcome largely depends on which activist organizations have the best fear-fueled ad campaigns. It’s the whole reason a comprehensive union reform law — passed by the duly elected legislature in Ohio and signed by the governor — was overturned by a popular-vote referendum in 2011.
I assume they will be able to collect those signatures. All they need is 442,958 Ohio voters who are on the left, and enough workers to reach them. Many many resources will be given to this effort, I’m assuming, because the left certainly realizes that success could change things, big time. Does the right understand what’s going on, and is it ready to fight this with enough resources to make a difference?
[ADDENDUM: I see that John Hinderaker has written on the same topic today. Good. He has a lot more traffic than I do, and I hope his post gets a lot of publicity and raises the alarm. His piece also contains a lengthy discussion of possible constitutionality issues connected with this movement.]
Even aside from the crazed attacks by leftists on the Electoral College, very few members of the conservative establishment seem aware of the even greater demographic threat facing the GOP. With most of the Democratic candidates leaning towards open-borders insanity, and with Trump so far being largely ineffective in controlling the situation, the likelihood is that the almost inevitable demographic transformation of the republic (especially in an important state such as Texas, soon to turn blue) will render any Republican hopes for a future presidency chimerical.
I find it astonishing that any small state would vote to give up its right to participate in the election of the President of the United States and place the selection in the hands of California, Texas, Florida and New York.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us-states-by-population.html
Logically, the next step is to abolish the Senate. Only the House of Representatives reflects the number of citizens (and now, non-citizens) residing in the states.
The democrats are dismantling the safeguards that our Founders built into the Constitution.
Reps have to point out that a national popular vote will mean that presidential candidates no longer have to even visit their states, much less listen to their concerns. Will such people try to initiate high speed rail between ranches in Montana or raise gas taxes for people who can’t take a subway to work?
I saw this coming my state, CO. It is now a fact here. I commented in various places about this, evening calling my local and state Republican parties. To no avail. They did not even call me back. The drive to destroy the US is in full swing. I am glad I am 72.
I have seen some commenters say that the compact is illegal. So far there have not been any law suits to test it out.
Citizens of New Mexico vote to circumvent the Electoral College
neo: My understanding is Governor Grisham signed the bill. While state citizens voted for her, they did not vote directly for NPVIC.
More joy: Valerie Plame is considering running for a NM seat in the House.
huxley:
Yes, I knew that. I wrote the title of the post before I wrote the post, and the title doesn’t describe what’s in it. I will amend, thanks.
LYNN HARGROVE:
My guess—and it’s just a guess—is that there can’t be a lawsuit yet because it doesn’t take effect until the movement reaches a certain number of states. Until it takes effect, no one is harmed by it and there’s no standing to sue.
I’m not sure that’s legally correct. But that would be my answer on a test if I were in law school.
the likelihood is that the almost inevitable demographic transformation of the republic (especially in an important state such as Texas, soon to turn blue) will render any Republican hopes for a future presidency chimerical.
Trump is now at 50% with Hispanics. Of course, those are legal Hispanics. The big issue next year will be ballot harvesting. I have seen a little action by GOP legislators in Arizona where it resulted in the election of a Democrat Senator with ,lots of “late” ballots appearing as long as a week after the election.
I would like to see what the Democrats do if Trump wins the popular vote next year, which he could do. What would New Mexico do then ?
Edward:
And note how easily they’re doing it. Not an amendment, but a state-by-state process that only requires a simple majority. In New Mexico, the legislature passes a bill, because the legislature is majority Democrat right now and the governor is a Democrat and will sign it. What’s to stop a subsequent majority Republican legislature from repealing the bill? Nothing, as long as a Republican governor would sign it.
As for Ohio, it’s just a referendum. It could be that only the highly-energized and aware will even vote on it. So ten percent or so of voting Ohioans could sign away the rights of all the others.
I wonder whether that could withstand a SCOTUS challenge.
States joined thus far (and D.C.): California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia.
Now aren’t Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Connecticut and Hawaii nominally small States, to say nothing of the District? Seems so to me, anyhow.
“Good and hard,” quoth the sage of Baltimore.
Because it’s blue states, the effect will be circumscribed.
What’s amusing is that the Democratic Party has been bereft of accomplishments at the federal level for nearly 40 years. They’ve gotten a couple of things done in New York over four decades (with the co-operation of the Republican caucus in the state senate). Mostly business as usual, and I don’t imagine it’s any different in your state. But they have time for ragged little gestures like this one, which might just allow them more time in a particular political office. Priorities.
The utility of the electoral college is that it provides a regular tabulation convention which allows states to maintain electorates of somewhat different dimensions. (In the case of California, an electorate enhanced in its dimensions by fraud). You’d think California and Ohio would want protection from ballot-stuffing in California and Arizona.
I wonder whether that could withstand a SCOTUS challenge.
I have seen a discussion, at Powerline I think, that the Constitution allows the states the choice of how to assess the votes.
I don’t think this adds up.
It only works right for them, if 1.) Trump wins, 2.) without the popular vote.
If Trump wins with 50% + 1 they throw ALL their electoral votes to him! Blue brain-matter will spray into orbit like Chicxulub ejecta!
If Trump loses, then he’s gone and the Compact did nothing zero for them.
I think they’re just trying to head-fake Trump into appearing to ‘attack’ the Popular Vote. And that might be why we aren’t hearing much about this…
Ted Clayton:
I don’t think they think they will reach the threshold number of states/votes by 2020. So if that’s the case, it won’t ever affect Trump (except perhaps his rhetoric). I think they have their sight on the future, post-2020. And of course if it’s only blue states that enact it, it won’t matter. But a state like Ohio matters a lot.
I like Neo’s suggestion that it maybe isn’t about 2020, but later, especially 2024.
I also agree that it’s worth wondering about the legal prospects. While it’s ok to be creative with how a state handles its own electoral votes, ‘farming out’ the disposition of any state’s electoral decisions to some outside entity or Compact sounds easy to challenge.
But in the current game, it’s good for Red Team to see Blue Team deflating the ball or smearing pine-tar.
From the John Hinderaker article neo links to;
“Article I, section 10, paragraph 3 reads in part:
“…no state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state.”
Hinderaker rightly observes; “It could lead, for the first time in American history, to serious doubt as to who is the rightful president.”
That’s not a bug. It’s a feature. If the Left can’t gain permanent control of America, it will settle for its dissolution. Which BTW, makes them guilty of, at the least, sedition. As they are actively acting to fundamentally transform America extraconstitutionally into a resultant condition that is inherently in opposition to constitutional principles.
‘Winston’ comments, “here the states are saying that their state voters do not even have the right to vote for the electors. It is complete disenfranchisement.”
And, that is why it is unconstitutional.
This is the pathway to making a Kurt Schlichter novel real.
Do not want.
Funny, Bill Clinton only got 42% of the vote in 1992 but won the Electoral College and became President. I wonder how the NPV would work with that? It was even worse with Lincoln who only received 40% of the vote in a field of 4.
While it’s ok to be creative with how a state handles its own electoral votes,
Doesn’t one state distribute its votes by Congressional districts?
Maybe Nebraska ?
Nebraska and Maine are the only States not awarding winner take all, though I believe (only vaguely recall) their manners of apportionment differ.
‘Winston’ comments, “here the states are saying that their state voters do not even have the right to vote for the electors. It is complete disenfranchisement.”
Good point.
Mike K at 7:36
On the U.S. House of Representatives site, Electoral College Fast Facts
“It could lead, for the first time in American history, to serious doubt as to who is the rightful president.” – Hinderaker
IIRC, the Roman Catholic Church had at least three “rightful” popes at the same time. Messed things up for centuries, but they had an institutional advantage the USA lacks.
Lynn – our local free paper carried a recent editorial on the legislation, and the writer (not particularly a red-meat-conservative) Was Not Amused.
He pointed out that this was purely a move by the very narrowly elected Dems while they had both houses and the Gov, not because the citizens of Colorado begged them to do it. (see some of the above discussion)
He broached the topic of recall, as happened with some gun-control-happy pols a couple of years ago.
It may be that this is just a case of preparing the target space, the way that the Equal Rights Amendment did. Despite all the claims that it would not lead to same-sex bathrooms and marriage — I heard them myself in the seventies — we who opposed it knew better. However, the fact that those outcomes were even opened to discussion, and seen as a possible positive by some people, moved the Overton Window left, and now we have those things without the Amendment.
Just imagine if it had passed.
Does anyone have any doubt that if this passes, and in a future election the Republican wins the popular vote, the blue states will find some way to wiggle out of it? I think that’s almost a 100% mathematical certainty. They will not honor the compact if they have to cast their states’ electoral votes for a Republican. The “faithless elector” will be the hero.
I could not be more cynical about this. It makes me sick.
thesixthmoon at 11:12 pm: “Does anyone have any doubt that if this passes, and in a future election the Republican wins the popular vote, the blue states will find some way to wiggle out of it?”
I have no such doubt.
They will “wiggle out” a different means to their end, which is always paramount: to (further) empower lefties/Democrats.
Electors are actual people. If the Republican slate of electors is chosen in New Mexico, how can the state compel the electors to vote for the national popular vote winner if the they don’t want to?
thesixthmoon at 11:12pm
M J R at 12:51am
Does anyone have any doubt that if this passes, and in a future election the Republican wins the popular vote, the blue states will find some way to wiggle out of it?
The Democrats/Blues are paying the price, as we speak, for another recent-past ‘maneuver’ also designed & intended to squeeze the Republicans out. Senate Leader Harry Reid took the so-called Nuclear Option, with the approval of Pres. Obama and other ranking DEM/Lefty honchos, eliminating major parts of the Senate filibuster tradition.
When the shoe ended up on the other foot, there was no way they could “wiggle out of it”. The GOP is now eating the DEMs lunch every day, viz judicial appointments – thanks to the Left’s own hostile move – and have a lien on their lunch for years & even decades into the future. So far, so good.
I agree, that this Compact is a tad flakey & goofy … but if they do go with it, there is no reason the GOP could not take it away from them & beat ’em up with it, as they have with Harry Reid’s ‘nuclear option’.
… And it was plain as the nose on your face from Day One, that Reid & Obama were setting themselves up for a HUGE potential fall, for their inexplicably self-endangering filibuster-removal move.
States can change their laws going forward, but as long as the law is the law, it’s the law.
The first time a state that approves the NPV has its residents vote for Candidate A and its electors vote for Candidate B, all hell will break loose in that state. There really is no way to justify it as being in the best interests of the state and its people. Even before that, if NPV ever becomes active then the political elites in a whole slew of small and mid-size states will very quickly learn how much it limits their power and influence.
So, I don’t think we need to worry THAT much about this particular bit of stupidity. What we do need to worry about is how NPV reflects an anti-democratic mindset among America’s elite, especially a liberal conviction that certain voters simply don’t and shouldn’t matter.
Yes, you can accuse conservatives of having that attitude toward minority voters but it’s one thing to dismiss 10% of the population. It’s another thing to do it to 60%+.
Mike
I knew about this effort, but I never thought the voters in states like New Mexico would allow themselves to be disenfranchised. As expat points out the small states will never see a presidential candidate again.
Indeed, I recall reading an article written by a university poli sci professor in New Mexico a few years ago. He and a student were outside, and the airheaded leftist went on and on about how we should have a national popular vote for President. At that moment an airliner was overhead, so high that you couldn’t see the plane. Just the contrails from the exhaust. The professor pointed to it and said, “See that plane? If we had a national popular vote that’s as close as you’ll ever get to presidential candidate again. A plane on a flight from Texas to California.”
Candidates are going to devote advertising and appearances to states where it matters. New York, California, and Illinois are safe for the Democrats. Small states are less likely to see attention because they flip only so many electoral votes. If you had national popular vote, you’d see more national advertising rather than advertising in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Where the candidates campaign and buy 30-second spots is a matter of scant interest. Containing the effect of pathological elections administration is of interest. The Democrats have no interest in doing that because they’re the ones stuffing the ballot boxes.
If you have national popular vote, you’re going to need a nationwide agency to administer elections. The smart money says it would have a dysfunctional seminal culture (see TSA) and copy the sort of stepping-on-rakes methods favored in California and Floriduh. Because that’s what happens in this country. You want effective public agencies, move to France.
And it was plain as the nose on your face from Day One, that Reid & Obama were setting themselves up for a HUGE potential fall, for their inexplicably self-endangering filibuster-removal move.
Ted Clayton: If one believes the “arc of history” is always bending your way plus the great day a’comin’ when whites are a minority in the US, it’s easy to ignore such downside.
Here’s a funny paragraph from a progressive writer, Joan C. Williams, for the Atlantic trying to explain, “The Democrats’ White-People Problem”:
___________________________________________________________
“Why not just wait for the white working class to die off?” asked an audience member at last year’s Berkeley Festival of Ideas. I get this question a lot, and I always reply: “Do you understand now why they voted for Trump? Your attitude is offensive, and Trump is their middle finger.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-democrats-white-people-problem/573901/
___________________________________________________________
Of course, Williams goes on at length to offend “white people” in her way. She is marginally more conscious about it, though only because she senses, correctly, that transparent anti-white bigotry damages the Democrats’ electoral prospects.
huxley at 3:06pm
While I didn’t vote for Trump’s qualities as a middle-finger, I daresay Joan does turn a fine piece of prose!
There’s always a problem with “the way things are going” assessments, and that’s that in many dynamics, the implied straight-line extrapolation is not how things will go.
Ted Clayton: I still track what my old comrades are up to. Since Trump won, the more sensible are appealing to their angry base saying, “You’ve got to listen to the deplorables … or we won’t get their votes.” But they’re still, of course, deplorable.
So it’s “Nice doggie, nice doggie,” in order to get close. Then the brick comes out and it’s clobberin’ time!
I think I got the “Nice doggie” riff from a Kurt Schlichter column.
A note from the Dept. of Unintended Consequences: this would have the effect of motivating people of the out-party in reliably one-party states to vote. That could lead to some unpredictable results. I, for instance, live in a reliably red state. I don’t like Trump but would have voted for him over Hillary if I lived in a swing state. The fact that Trump was going to win our electoral votes anyway allowed me to indulge in a 3rd-party vote.
But if this contemptible scheme ever comes into play and I have a choice like the above, they would have to tie me up with barbed wire to keep me from voting for the Republican.
I have no idea of how many people would be similarly affected in either direction. But the assumption that the popular vote itself would not be affected by such a scheme is foolish.
What will be the daily bag limit, if any, when the shooting starts?
Who would have standing to challenge this in the courts?
And would the Supreme Court look at this before it actually changes the results of an election? We not we are in for quite a ride.
I have been saying for some time that it is time to buy more guns and ammo to be prepared for the coming disaster. If the leftists socialists continue to gain ground as they have been (schools now indoctrination centers, ACLU and others support the elimination of due process, local, State and Federal “Governments” run amok defying the people wish’s and enjoying unbelievable personal gains from their corruption, etc, etc.) America will be gone in the near future.
New Mexico used to be a swing state, but the legislature (and governor) took a hard left turn this year. They passed several very progressive new laws. They passed a law to mandate zero-carbon electricity by 2045 (while at the same time gleefully spending the windfall from the oil and gas boom in the Permian Basin). I feel like I’ve been transported to California. It’s still hard for me to believe that anyone in a small state would willingly give away political power by taking away the electoral college.
Bag limits? More guns, more ammo? Shootin’ startin’? Disaster a-comin’?
Twitchin’ like a finger on the trigger, much? Rehearsing for that juicy Hunger Games part?
#1.) During the late ’60s and early ’70s, domestic activist bombs were going off in the USA at the rate of over 100 per week, during the peak period. Over 5,000 a year, in the USA. All the hot-talkin’ Resistance of the last few years, combined, doesn’t amount to the action of a single busy day, in our youth. For pity sake, Berkeley can barely find one unstable critter to punch-out a single Conservative speaker on campus…
#2.) Wut? 99%? 99.9%? Virtually the entire armed citizenry will line up to be deputized for the posse that is organized for the first Right/Conservative who thinks his weapon speaks more eloquently than his Ballot.
It’s PsyOps, people. This isn’t a shooting conflict, not the deployment of things that go bang. And the opposing team scores, each time someone trots out their fav trip-wire line.
What happens when a Republican candidate, no matter how minimally he is to the right of center, wins the popular vote and California, New York, and the other states that have passed this legislation have to give their electoral votes to him? Who thinks they will actually follow through, and not find some loophole to allow them to throw their votes to the Democrat in the race instead? America had a good run, but after 243 years it’s over.
More apt insights about the psychosis of “the thinking classes” :
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-curse-of-the-thinking-class/#more-10278‘
Dave at 11:40am
California voted FOR Prop 8, “One Man, One Woman”, just one decade ago.
Government is currently rigged for the Democrats in California, but that doesn’t really tell us what California voters are, or ‘where they’re at’.
Indeed, a number of elected conservative California officials have long played key national roles. If there is a strong national GOP ‘operation’, and a Trump-type base, then the path to power for a California Republican is as good as those from other states. Hispanic-Americans in California are taking a beating from their State-house politics, and they’re not happy about it.
Remember that wash-up Hollywood actor … wasn’t he Californian?
Before we all get too spun up over this. The constitution specifically forbids states to enter into “any” interstate compact. If they get to 270 it will face an immediate challenge and will almost certainly be found unconstitutional.
One important point is that compacts are specifically prohibited to prevent the states from forming them to bypass the constitution.
UncleFred:
I’m going to assume you didn’t go to the link I posted in the Addendum, in which John Hinderaker deals with the issue of constitutionality and finds that it is by no means clear what the outcome would be in the courts. Please read it.
MikeW, barring major advances in hydrogen fuel cells, battery technology, and mini nuclear power generation, I’d say the “carbon free by 2045” law is legislating the impossible. What are they going to do when they don’t make it, throw Mother Nature in jail?
UncleFred at 2:14pm
Thank you.
Wikipedia no less has an article just for it: Interstate compact
Article 1, Section 10 U.S. Constitution. Compact Clause
The ‘escape clause’ is, “without the Consent of Congress”.
So there are a bunch of Compacts (big list in the article), falling into several described categories. All of them go through Congress, and they are all undertaken for the common good.
Like the Green New Deal, really, what’s not to like?
Oops. I did not see Neo’s reply to UncleFred.
John Hinderaker’s article, too, has now been Updated, not yet sure in what regard.
Yes … John Hinderaker’s Update is 5 pages long, stimulated by a reader-comment, and deals with Article 1, Section 10 (which is basically where a ‘first-pass’ homework session takes us).
John concludes:
So he partially retreats, while lodging a “partial research” escape clause.
Is this the John Hinderaker who is former Governor of Colorado? I followed with interest material from him (he sounded a lot like this guy…) during their marijuana moves … and I observed very well-laid “preemptive strikes” made against him by the DEM Establishment et al, on their own pure speculation that he would some day run for President.
So I’ve probably answered my question…
My John Hinderaker confusion
No, Mr. Hinderaker is the Colorada-nothing. Whatever was going on in the media viz Hinderaker during the marijuana process … he wasn’t Governor, and no Colorado governor answers to his search-terms.
I apologize for the noise on the channel.
Oh yeah. John Hickenlooper.
Ok. I’m on the right page, now. I stepped on the banana peel a few days ago, and didn’t even realize I was upside-down & face-first … ’till just now.
Kate @2:39pm:
Yes, that’s exactly what I thought — they are trying to mandate something that isn’t even technically feasible at this time (and there’s no way to know if it will become feasible).
At some point the Compact will have the 270 electoral votes, and inevitably, sometime he Dems will be in control of both Houses of Congress and will consent. And that will be the end of the Republic. The only question is whether there will be civil war and succession or just succession.
Conservative pols need to stand up for the electoral college. We don’t have a “national popular vote” for a reason. We have 50 statewide elections (plus DC) for a reason. So we get a President who represents all the people, not just the people of Kali, NY, and Illinois.
And when the leftists in your state push for a national popular vote, which has no constitutional meaning, their intent is to nullify your vote. They don’t want your vote to count. They only want the votes in other, reliably leftist states, to count. I think an astute PR person could do some effective messaging about this.