fbpx
Wikipedia

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

October 28, 2023

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] Introduced in 2006, as of August 2023 it has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions have 205 electoral votes, which is 38% of the Electoral College and 76% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Status as of August 2023:
0
270
538

Each square in the cartogram represents one electoral vote.

  •   Enacted – 205 EVs (38.1% of Electoral College)
  •   Pending – 63 EVs (11.7%)
  •   Neither enacted nor pending – 270 EVs (50.2%)[1]
  • | Threshold for activation – 270 EVs (50%+1)
DraftedJanuary 2006
EffectiveNot in effect
ConditionAdoption by states (and D.C.) whose electoral votes comprise a majority in the Electoral College. The agreement would then be in effect only among them.
Signatories
List
Full text
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote at Wikisource

Certain legal questions may affect implementation of the compact. Some legal observers believe states have plenary power to appoint electors as prescribed by the compact; others believe that the compact will require congressional consent under the Constitution's Compact Clause or that the presidential election process cannot be altered except by a constitutional amendment.

Mechanism edit

Taking the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. Once in effect, in each presidential election the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.

The compact would modify the way participating states implement Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state legislature to define a method to appoint its electors to vote in the Electoral College. The Constitution does not mandate any particular legislative scheme for selecting electors, and instead vests state legislatures with the exclusive power to choose how to allocate their states' electors (although systems that violate the 14th Amendment, which mandates equal protection of the law and prohibits racial discrimination, are prohibited).[3][4] States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades. Today, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) award all their electoral votes to the single candidate with the most votes statewide (the so-called "winner-take-all" system). Maine and Nebraska currently award one electoral vote to the winner in each congressional district and their remaining two electoral votes to the statewide winner.

The compact would no longer be in effect should the total number of electoral votes held by the participating states fall below the threshold required, which could occur due to withdrawal of one or more states, changes due to the decennial congressional re-apportionment or an increase in the size of Congress, for example by admittance of a 51st state. The compact mandates a July 20 deadline in presidential election years, six months before Inauguration Day, to determine whether the agreement is in effect for that particular election. Any withdrawal by a participating state after that deadline will not become effective until the next President is confirmed.[5]

Motivation edit

See also: United States Electoral College § Contemporary issues, and United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote

Reasons given for the compact include:

(1) State winner-take-all laws encourage candidates to focus disproportionately on a limited set of swing states (and in the case of Maine and Nebraska, swing districts), as small changes in the popular vote in those areas produce large changes in the electoral college vote.

For example, in the 2016 election, a shift of 2,736 votes (or less than 0.4% of all votes cast) toward Donald Trump in New Hampshire would have produced a four electoral vote gain for his campaign. A similar shift in any other state would have produced no change in the electoral vote, thus encouraging the campaign to focus on New Hampshire above other states. A study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three-quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states received very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.[6] This means that swing state issues receive more attention, while issues important to other states are largely ignored.[7][8][9]

(2) State winner-take-all laws tend to decrease voter turnout in states without close races. Voters living outside the swing states have a greater certainty of which candidate is likely to win their state. This knowledge of the probable outcome decreases their incentive to vote.[7][9] A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the ten closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country – a 17% gap.[10]

Elections in which the popular vote winner lost
Election Election winner Popular vote winner Difference Turnout[11]
1824 J. Q. Adams 30.9% 113,122 Jackson 41.4% 157,271 10.5% 44,149 26.9%
1876 Hayes 47.9% 4,034,311 Tilden 50.9% 4,288,546 3.0% 254,235 82.6%
1888 Harrison 47.8% 5,443,892 Cleveland 48.6% 5,534,488 0.8% 90,596 80.5%
2000 G. W. Bush 47.9% 50,456,002 Gore 48.4% 50,999,897 0.5% 543,895 54.2%
2016 Trump 46.1% 62,984,828 H. Clinton 48.2% 65,853,514 2.1% 2,868,686 60.1%

(3) The current Electoral College system allows a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote, an outcome seen as counter to the one person, one vote principle of democracy.[12]

This happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.[13] (The 1960 election is also a disputed example.[14]) In the 2000 election, for instance, Al Gore won 543,895 more votes nationally than George W. Bush, but Bush secured five more electors than Gore, in part due to a narrow Bush victory in Florida; in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton won 2,868,691 more votes nationally than Donald Trump, but Trump secured 77 more electors than Clinton, in part due to narrow Trump victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (a cumulative 77,744 votes).

Whether these splits suggest an advantage for one major party or the other in the Electoral College is discussed in § Suggested partisan advantage below.

Debate over effects edit

The project has been supported by editorials in newspapers, including The New York Times,[7] the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times,[15] The Boston Globe,[16] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune,[17] arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.[18] Pete du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, called the project an "urban power grab" that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run.[19] A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters.[20] Some of the most common points of debate are detailed below:

Protective function of the Electoral College edit

Main articles: United States Electoral College § Continuity of government and peaceful transitions of power, and United States Electoral College § Foreign interference and domestic intrigue

Certain founders, notably Alexander Hamilton, conceived of the Electoral College as a deliberative body which would weigh the inputs of the states, but not be bound by them, in selecting the president, and would therefore serve to protect the country from the election of a person who is unfit to be president.[21] However, the Electoral College has never served such a role in practice. From 1796 onward, presidential electors have acted as "rubber stamps" for their parties' nominees. As of 2020, no election outcome has been determined by an elector deviating from the will of their state.[22] Journalist and commentator Peter Beinart has cited the election of Donald Trump, whom some, he notes, view as unfit, as evidence that the Electoral College does not perform a protective function.[23] Furthermore, thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws to prevent such "faithless electors",[24][25] and such laws were upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2020 in Chiafalo v. Washington.[26] The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not eliminate the Electoral College or affect faithless elector laws; it merely changes how electors are pledged by the participating states.

Campaign focus on swing states edit

Focus of major-party candidates in the final stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign (Sept. 26 – Nov. 2, 2004)[27]
Spending on advertising per capita:
  •   < $0.50
  •   $0.50 – 1.00
  •   $1.00 – 2.00
  •   $2.00 – 4.00
  •   > $4.00
Campaign visits per 1 million residents:
  •   No visits
  •   0 – 1.0
  •   1.0 – 3.0
  •   3.0 – 9.0
  •   > 9.0
  

Under the current system, campaign focus – as measured by spending, visits, and attention paid to regional or state issues – is largely limited to the few swing states whose electoral outcomes are competitive, with politically "solid" states mostly ignored by the campaigns. The adjacent maps illustrate the amount spent on advertising and the number of visits to each state, relative to population, by the two major-party candidates in the last stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign. Supporters of the compact contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign with equal effort for votes in competitive and non-competitive states alike.[28] Critics of the compact argue that candidates would have less incentive to focus on states with smaller populations or fewer urban areas, and would thus be less motivated to address rural issues.[19][29]

Disputed results and electoral fraud edit

Opponents of the compact have raised concerns about the handling of close or disputed outcomes. National Popular Vote contends that an election being decided based on a disputed tally is far less likely under the NPVIC, which creates one large nationwide pool of voters, than under the current system, in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small margin in any one of the fifty-one smaller statewide tallies.[29] However, the national popular vote can be closer than the vote tally within any one state. In the event of an exact tie in the nationwide tally, NPVIC member states will award their electors to the winner of the popular vote in their state.[5] Under the NPVIC, each state will continue to handle disputes and statewide recounts as governed by their own laws.[30] The NPVIC does not include any provision for a nationwide recount, though Congress has the authority to create such a provision.[31]

Pete du Pont argues that "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin [in the 2000 election] amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. 'Finding' three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing...".[19] However, National Popular Vote contends that altering the outcome via electoral fraud would be more difficult under a national popular vote than under the current system, due to the greater number of total votes that would likely need to be changed: currently, a close election may be determined by the outcome in just one "tipping-point state", and the margin in that state is likely to be far smaller than the nationwide margin, due to the smaller pool of voters at the state level, and the fact that several states may have close results.[29]

Suggested partisan advantage edit

 
Historical partisan advantage in the Electoral College, computed as the difference between popular vote margins nationally and in the tipping-point state(s). Positive values indicate a Republican advantage and negative values indicate a Democratic advantage.[32]

Some supporters and opponents of the NPVIC believe it gives one party an advantage relative to the current Electoral College system. Former Delaware Governor Pete du Pont, a Republican, has argued that the compact would be an "urban power grab" and benefit Democrats.[19] However, Saul Anuzis, former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, wrote that Republicans "need" the compact, citing what he believes to be the center-right nature of the American electorate.[33]

A statistical analysis by FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver of all presidential elections from 1864 to 2016 (see adjacent chart) found that the Electoral College has not consistently favored one major party or the other, and that any advantage in the Electoral College does not tend to last long, noting that "there's almost no correlation between which party has the Electoral College advantage in one election and which has it four years later."[32] Although in all four elections since 1876 in which the winner lost the popular vote, the Republican became president, Silver's analysis shows that such splits are about equally likely to favor either major party.[32] A popular vote-Electoral College split favoring the Democrat John Kerry nearly occurred in 2004.[34]

New Yorker essayist Hendrik Hertzberg also concluded that the NPVIC would benefit neither party, noting that historically both Republicans and Democrats have been successful in winning the popular vote in presidential elections.[35]

State power relative to population edit

 
State population per electoral vote from the 2020 census

There is some debate over whether the Electoral College favors small- or large-population states. Those who argue that the College favors low-population states point out that such states have proportionally more electoral votes relative to their populations.[a][18][36] In the least-populous states, with three electors, this results in voters having 143% greater voting power than they would under purely proportional allocation, while in the most populous state, California, voters' power is 16% smaller than under proportional allocation. In contrast, the NPVIC would give equal weight to each voter's ballot, regardless of what state they live in. Others, however, believe that since most states award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all system (the "unit rule"), the potential of populous states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more clout than would be expected from their electoral vote count alone.[37][38][39]

Opponents of a national popular vote contend that the Electoral College is a fundamental component of the federal system established by the Constitutional Convention. Specifically, the Connecticut Compromise established a bicameral legislature – with proportional representation of the states in the House of Representatives and equal representation of the states in the Senate – as a compromise between less populous states fearful of having their interests dominated and voices drowned out by larger states,[40] and larger states which viewed anything other than proportional representation as an affront to principles of democratic representation.[41] The ratio of the populations of the most and least populous states is far greater currently (68.50 as of the 2020 census) than when the Connecticut Compromise was adopted (7.35 as of the 1790 census), exaggerating the non-proportional component of the compromise allocation.

Irrelevance of state-level majorities edit

Three governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation—Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Linda Lingle of Hawaii, and Steve Sisolak of Nevada—objected to the compact on the grounds that it could require their states' electoral votes to be awarded to a candidate who did not win a majority in their state. (California and Hawaii have since enacted laws joining the compact.) Supporters of the compact counter that under a national popular vote system, state-level majorities are irrelevant; in all states, votes contribute to the nationwide tally, which determines the winner. Individual votes combine to directly determine the outcome, while the intermediary measure of state-level majorities is rendered obsolete.[42][43][44]

Proliferation of candidates edit

Some opponents of the compact contend that it would lead to a proliferation of third-party candidates, such that an election could be won with a plurality of as little as 15% of the vote.[45][46] However, evidence from U.S. gubernatorial and other races in which a plurality results in a win do not bear out this suggestion. In the 975 general elections for Governor in the U.S. between 1948 and 2011, 90% of winners received more than 50% of the vote, 99% received more than 40%, and all received more than 35%.[45] Duverger's law supports the contention that plurality elections do not generally create a proliferation of minor candidacies with significant vote shares.[45]

State voting law differences edit

Each state sets its own rules for voting, including registration deadlines, voter ID laws, poll closing times, conditions for early and absentee voting, and disenfranchisement of felons.[47] Parties in power have an incentive to create state rules meant to skew the relative turnout for each party in their favor. Under NPVIC, this incentive may be less than in the current system, as the awarding of electoral votes will no longer be determined solely by the votes cast within a given state. Under the compact, however, there may be an incentive for states to create rules that increase their total turnout, and thus their impact on the nationwide vote totals. In either system, the voting rules of each state have the potential to affect the election outcome for the rest of the country.[48]

Constitutionality edit

Main article: Constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

There is ongoing legal debate about the constitutionality of the NPVIC. At issue are interpretations of the Compact Clause of Article I, Section X, and states' plenary power under the Elections Clause of Article II, Section I.

Compact clause edit

A 2019 report by the Congressional Research Service examined whether the NPVIC should be considered an interstate compact, and as such, whether it would require congressional approval to take effect. At issue is whether the NPVIC would affect the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments,[list 1] and the horizontal balance of power between the states.[55][56]

With respect to vertical balance of power, the NPVIC removes the possibility of contingent elections for President conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives. Whether this would be a de minimis diminishment of federal power is unresolved. The Supreme Court has also held that congressional consent is required for interstate compacts that alter the horizontal balance of power among the states.[57][58] There is debate over whether the NPVIC affects the power of non-compacting states with regard to Presidential elections.[59][60][61][62][63][64]

One law professor has argued that Congress cannot consent to the NPVIC, because Congress has no power to alter the functioning of the Electoral College under Article I, Section VIII.[65] However, a report by the General Accounting Office suggests congressional authority is not limited in this way.[66][67][66]

The CRS report concluded that the NPVIC would likely become the source of considerable litigation, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be involved in any resolution of the constitutional issues surrounding it.[68][69] NPV Inc. has stated that they plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states.[70]

Plenary power doctrine edit

Proponents of the compact have argued that states have the plenary power to appoint electors in accordance with the national popular vote under the Elections Clause of Article II, Section I.[71] However, the Supreme Court has found limits on the manner in which states may appoint their electors, under several Constitutional amendments.[72][73][74][75][76]

One law professor has argued that the NPVIC would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, because it does not require uniform election laws across both compacting and non-compacting states; however, NPVIC Inc. argues that there is no precedent for claims of interstate violations of the Equal Protection Clause.[77]

Another legal scholar has argued that by de facto eliminating the disproportionate weight that less populous states have in selecting the President, the NPVIC is not compatible "in a substantive sense" with the Elections Clause of Article I, Section IV.[78]

The Supreme Court has held that states may bind their electors to the state's popular vote, enforceable by penalty or removal and replacement.[79][80] This has been interpreted by some legal observers as a precedent that states may likewise choose to bind their electors to the national popular vote, while other legal observers cautioned against reading the opinion too broadly.[81][82][83][84]

Due to a lack of a precedent and case law, the CRS report concludes that whether states are allowed to appoint their electors in accordance with the national popular vote is an open question.[85]

History edit

Public support for Electoral College reform edit

Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority or plurality of Americans support a popular vote for President. Gallup polls dating back to 1944 showed consistent majorities of the public supporting a direct vote.[86] A 2007 Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 72% favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election, including 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of independent voters.[87]

A November 2016 Gallup poll following the 2016 U.S. presidential election showed that Americans' support for amending the U.S. Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote fell to 49%, with 47% opposed. Republican support for replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote dropped significantly, from 54% in 2011 to 19% in 2016, which Gallup attributed to a partisan response to the 2016 result, where the Republican candidate Donald Trump won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote.[88] In March 2018, a Pew Research Center poll showed that 55% of Americans supported replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote, with 41% opposed, but that a partisan divide remained in that support, as 75% of self-identified Democrats supported replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote, while only 32% of self-identified Republicans did.[89] A September 2020 Gallup poll showed support for amending the U.S. Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote rose to 61% with 38% opposed, similar to levels prior to the 2016 election, although the partisan divide continued with support from 89% of Democrats and 68% of independents, but only 23% of Republicans.[90] An August 2022 Pew Research Center poll showed 63% support for a national popular vote versus 35% opposed, with support from 80% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans.[91]

Proposals for constitutional amendment edit

Further information: Electoral College abolition amendment and United States Electoral College § Efforts to abolish or reform

The Electoral College system was established by Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, drafted in 1787.[92][93] It "has been a source of discontent for more than 200 years."[94] Over 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the system have been introduced in Congress,[95] making it one of the most popular topics of constitutional reform.[96][97] Electoral College reform and abolition has been advocated "by a long roster of mainstream political leaders with disparate political interests and ideologies."[98] Proponents of these proposals argued that the electoral college system does not provide for direct democratic election, affords less-populous states an advantage, and allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the most votes.[95] Reform amendments were approved by two-thirds majorities in one branch of Congress six times in history.[97] However, other than the 12th Amendment in 1804, none of these proposals have received the approval of two-thirds of both branches of Congress and three-fourths of the states required to amend the Constitution.[99] The difficulty of amending the Constitution has always been the "most prominent structural obstacle" to reform efforts.[100]

Since the 1940s, when modern scientific polling on the subject began, a majority of Americans have preferred changing the electoral college system.[94][96] Between 1948 and 1979, Congress debated electoral college reform extensively, and hundreds of reform proposals were introduced in the House and Senate. During this period, Senate and House Judiciary Committees held hearings on 17 different occasions. Proposals were debated five times in the Senate and twice in the House, and approved by two-thirds majorities twice in the Senate and once in the House, but never at the same time.[101] In the late 1960s and 1970s, over 65% of voters supported amending the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote,[94] with support peaking at 80% in 1968, after Richard Nixon almost lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College vote.[96] A similar situation occurred again with Jimmy Carter's election in 1976; a poll taken weeks after the election found 73% support for eliminating the Electoral College by amendment.[96] Carter himself proposed a Constitutional amendment that would include the abolition of the electoral college shortly after taking office in 1977.[102] After a direct popular election amendment failed to pass the Senate in 1979 and prominent congressional advocates retired or were defeated in elections, electoral college reform subsided from public attention and the number of reform proposals in Congress dwindled.[103]

Interstate compact plan edit

 
Distribution of electoral votes following the 2020 census

The 2000 US presidential election produced the first "wrong winner" since 1888, with Al Gore winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush.[104] This "electoral misfire" sparked new studies and proposals from scholars and activists on electoral college reform, ultimately leading to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).[105]

In 2001, "two provocative articles" were published by law professors suggesting paths to a national popular vote through state legislative action rather than constitutional amendment.[106] The first, a paper by Northwestern University law professor Robert W. Bennett, suggested states could pressure Congress to pass a constitutional amendment by acting together to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.[107] Bennett noted that the 17th Amendment was passed only after states had enacted state-level reform measures unilaterally.[108]

A few months later, Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar and his brother, University of California Hastings School of Law professor Vikram Amar, wrote a paper suggesting states could coordinate their efforts by passing uniform legislation under the Presidential Electors Clause and Compact Clause of the Constitution.[109] The legislation could be structured to take effect only once enough states to control a majority of the Electoral College (270 votes) joined the compact, thereby guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.[108][96] Bennett and the Amar brothers "are generally credited as the intellectual godparents" of NPVIC.[110]

Organization and advocacy edit

Building on the work of Bennett and the Amar brothers, in 2006, John Koza, a computer scientist, former elector, and "longtime critic of the Electoral College",[106][citation needed] created the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), a formal interstate compact that linked and unified individual states' pledges to commit their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. NPVIC offered "a framework for building support one state at a time as well as a legal mechanism for enforcing states' commitments after the threshold of 270 had been reached."[108] Compacts of this type had long existed to regulate interstate issues such as water rights, ports, and nuclear waste.[108]

Koza, who had earned "substantial wealth" by co-inventing the scratchcard,[106] had worked on lottery compacts such as the Tri-State Lottery with an election lawyer, Barry Fadem.[108] To promote NPVIC, Koza, Fadem, and a group of former Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives, formed a California 501(c)(4) non-profit, National Popular Vote Inc. (NPV, Inc.).[111][96] NPV, Inc. published Every Vote Equal, a detailed, "600-page tome"[106] explaining and advocating for NPVIC,[112][96] and a regular newsletter reporting on activities and encouraging readers to petition their governors and state legislators to pass NPVIC.[112] NPV, Inc. also commissioned statewide opinion polls, organized educational seminars for legislators and "opinion makers", and hired lobbyists in almost every state seriously considering NPVIC legislation.[113]

NPVIC was announced at a press conference in Washington, D.C., on February 23, 2006,[112] with the endorsement of former US Senator Birch Bayh; Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause; Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote; and former US Representatives John Anderson and John Buchanan.[106] NPV, Inc. announced it planned to introduce legislation in all 50 states and had already done so in Illinois.[106][96] "To many observers, the NPVIC looked initially to be an implausible, long-shot approach to reform",[108] but within months of the campaign's launch, several major newspapers including The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, published favorable editorials.[108] Shortly after the press conference, NPVIC legislation was introduced in five additional state legislatures,[112] "most with bipartisan support".[108] It passed in the Colorado Senate, and in both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.[108]

Adoption edit

Further information: § Bills and referendums

In 2007, NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 states. It was passed by at least one legislative chamber in Arkansas,[114] California,[42] Colorado,[115] Illinois,[116] New Jersey,[117] North Carolina,[118] Maryland, and Hawaii.[119] Maryland became the first state to join the compact when Governor Martin O'Malley signed it into law on April 10, 2007.[120]

NPVIC legislation has been introduced in all 50 states.[1] As of August 2023, the NPVIC has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia; notably, no Republican governor has yet signed it into law. Together, they have 205 electoral votes, which is 38.1% of the Electoral College and 75.9% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

In Nevada, the legislation passed both chambers in 2019, but was vetoed by Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) on May 30, 2019.[121] In Maine, the legislation also passed both chambers in 2019, but failed the additional enactment vote in the House.[122] States where only one chamber has passed the legislation are Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Bills seeking to repeal the compact in Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington have failed.[123]


Total
electoral
votes of
adoptive
states
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
'15
'16
'17
'18
'19
'20
'21
'22
'23
0
45
90
135
180
225
270
MD
NJ
IL
HI
WA
MA
DC
VT
CA
RI
NY
CT
CO
DE
NM
OR
MN
← 205 (75.9% of 270)
270 electoral votes (threshold for activation)
First
legislative
introduction



Reapportionment
based on
2010 census
Reapportionment
based on
2020 census
History of state enactment of the NPVIC as of August 2023
Jurisdictions enacting law to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
No.JurisdictionDate adoptedMethod of adoptionRef.Current
electoral
votes (EV)
1MarylandApril 10, 2007Signed by Gov. Martin O'Malley[120]10
2New JerseyJanuary 13, 2008Signed by Gov. Jon Corzine[124]14
3IllinoisApril 7, 2008Signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich[116]19
4HawaiiMay 1, 2008Legislature overrode veto of Gov. Linda Lingle[125]4
5WashingtonApril 28, 2009Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire[126]12
6MassachusettsAugust 4, 2010Signed by Gov. Deval Patrick[127]11
7District of ColumbiaOctober 12, 2010Signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty[b][129]3
8VermontApril 22, 2011Signed by Gov. Peter Shumlin[130]3
9CaliforniaAugust 8, 2011Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown[131]54
10Rhode IslandJuly 12, 2013Signed by Gov. Lincoln Chafee[132]4
11New YorkApril 15, 2014Signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo[133]28
12ConnecticutMay 24, 2018Signed by Gov. Dannel Malloy[134]7
13ColoradoMarch 15, 2019Signed by Gov. Jared Polis[135]10
14DelawareMarch 28, 2019Signed by Gov. John Carney[136]3
15New MexicoApril 3, 2019Signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham[137]5
16OregonJune 12, 2019Signed by Gov. Kate Brown[138]8
17MinnesotaMay 24, 2023Signed by Gov. Tim Walz[139]10
Total205
Percentage of the 270 EVs needed75.9%
For a detailed history of bills to adopt the compact, see § Bills and referendums.

Initiatives and referendums edit

In Maine, an initiative to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact began collecting signatures on April 17, 2016. It failed to collect enough signatures to appear on the ballot.[140][141] In Arizona, a similar initiative began collecting signatures on December 19, 2016, but failed to collect the required 150,642 signatures by July 5, 2018.[142][143] In Missouri, an initiative did not collect the required number of signatures before the deadline of May 6, 2018.[144][145]

Colorado Proposition 113, a ballot measure seeking to overturn Colorado's adoption of the compact, was on the November 3, 2020 ballot; Colorado's membership was affirmed by a vote of 52.3% to 47.7% in the referendum.[146]

Prospects edit

Political analyst Nate Silver noted in 2014 that all jurisdictions that had adopted the compact at that time were blue states (all of the states who have joined the compact then and since have given all of their electoral college votes to the Democratic candidate in every Presidential election since the compact's inception), and that there were not enough electoral votes from the remaining blue states to achieve the required majority. He concluded that, as swing states were unlikely to support a compact that reduces their influence, the compact could not succeed without adoption by some red states as well.[147] Republican-led chambers have adopted the measure in New York (2011),[148] Oklahoma (2014), and Arizona (2016), and the measure has been unanimously approved by Republican-led committees in Georgia and Missouri, prior to the 2016 election.[149]

On March 15, 2019, Colorado became the most "purple" state to join the compact, though no Republican legislators supported the bill and Colorado had a state government trifecta under Democrats.[150] It was later submitted to a referendum, approved by 52% of voters.

In April 2021, reapportionment following the 2020 census caused NPVIC members California, Illinois and New York to each lose one electoral vote, and Colorado and Oregon to each gain one, causing the total electoral votes represented by members to fall from 196 to 195.

Novel opposing action by North Dakota edit

On February 17, 2021, the North Dakota Senate passed SB 2271,[151] "to amend and reenact sections ... relating to procedures for canvassing and counting votes for presidential electors"[152] in a deliberate—albeit indirect—effort to stymie the efficacy of the NPVIC by prohibiting disclosure of the state's popular vote until after the Electoral College meets.[153][154] Later the bill was entirely rewritten as only a statement of intent and ordering a study for future recommendations, and this version was signed into law.[152]

Bills and referendums edit

Bills in latest session edit

The table below lists all state bills to join the NPVIC introduced in a state's current or most recent legislative session.[123] This includes all bills that are law, pending or have failed. The "EVs" column indicates the number of electoral votes each state has.

State EVs Session Bill Latest action Lower house Upper house Executive Status Ref.
Alaska 3 2023–24 SB 61 May 3, 2023 — In committee — Pending [155]
Arizona 11 2023 SB 1485 February 9, 2023 — Died in committee — Failed [156]
Florida 30 2023 HB 53 May 5, 2023 Died in committee — — Failed [157]
SB 860 May 5, 2023 — Died in committee — [158]
Maine 4 2023–24 LD 1578 July 25, 2023 In committee In committee — Pending [159]
Michigan 15 2023–24 HB 4156 June 6, 2023 Passed committee — — Pending [160]
SB 126 March 2, 2023 — In committee — [161]
Minnesota 10 2023–24 HF 1830[c] May 24, 2023 Passed 69–62 Passed 34–31 Signed Law [163]
SF 538 February 2, 2023 — Passed committee — Pending [164]
SF 1362 May 1, 2023 Introduced Passed 34–33 — [165]
Mississippi 6 2023 HB 491 January 31, 2023 Died in committee — — Failed [166]
Missouri 10 2023 HB 829 May 12, 2023 Died in committee — — Failed [167]
HB 997 May 12, 2023 Died in committee — — [168]
Nevada 6 2023 AJR 6 May 22, 2023 Passed 27–14 Passed 12–9 N/A Pending[d] [169]
North Carolina 16 2023–24 HB 191 February 27, 2023 In committee — — Pending [170]
South Carolina 9 2023–24 H 3240 January 10, 2023 In committee — — Pending [171]
H 3807 January 25, 2023 In committee — — [172]
Texas 40 2023 HB 237 February 23, 2023 Died in committee — — Failed [173]
SB 95 February 15, 2023 — Died in committee — [174]
Wisconsin 10 2023–24 AB 156 April 10, 2023 In committee — — Pending [175]
SB 144 July 10, 2023 — In committee — [176]

Bills receiving floor votes in previous sessions edit

The table below lists past bills that received a floor vote (a vote by the full chamber) in at least one chamber of the state's legislature. Bills that failed without a floor vote are not listed. The "EVs" column indicates the number of electoral votes the state had at the time of the latest vote on the bill. This number may have changed since then due to reapportionment after the 2010 and 2020 census.

State EVs Session Bill Lower house Upper house Executive Outcome Ref.
Arizona 11 2016 HB 2456 Passed 40–16 Died in committee — Failed [177]
Arkansas 6 2007 HB 1703 Passed 52–41 Died in committee — Failed [178]
2009 HB 1339 Passed 56–43 Died in committee — Failed [179]
California 55 2005–06 AB 2948 Passed 48–30 Passed 23–14 Vetoed Failed [180]
2007–08 SB 37 Passed 45–30 Passed 21–16 Vetoed Failed [42]
2011–12 AB 459 Passed 52–15 Passed 23–15 Signed Law [131]
Colorado 9 2006 SB 06-223 Indefinitely postponed Passed 20–15 — Failed [181]
2007 SB 07-046 Indefinitely postponed Passed 19–15 — Failed [115]
2009 HB 09-1299 Passed 34–29 Not voted — Failed [182]
2019 SB 19-042 Passed 34–29 Passed 19–16 Signed Law [183]
Connecticut 7 2009 HB 6437 Passed 76–69 Not voted — Failed [184]
2018 HB 5421 Passed 77–73 Passed 21–14 Signed Law [185]
Delaware 3 2009–10 HB 198 Passed 23–11 Not voted — Failed [186]
2011–12 HB 55 Passed 21–19 Died in committee — Failed [187]
2019–20 SB 22 Passed 24–17 Passed 14–7 Signed Law [188]
District of Columbia 3 2009–10 B18-0769 Passed 11–0 Signed Law [189]
Hawaii 4 2007 SB 1956 Passed 35–12 Passed 19–4 Vetoed Failed [119]
Override not voted Overrode 20–5
2008 HB 3013 Passed 36–9 Died in committee — Failed [190]
SB 2898 Passed 39–8 Passed 20–4 Vetoed Law [125]
Overrode 36–3 Overrode 20–4 Overridden
Illinois 21 2007–08 HB 858 Passed 65–50 Died in committee — Failed [191]
HB 1685 Passed 64–50 Passed 37–22 Signed Law [116]
Louisiana 8 2012 HB 1095 Failed 29–64 — — Failed [192]
Maine 4 2007–08 LD 1744 Indefinitely postponed Passed 18–17 — Failed [193]
2013–14 LD 511 Failed 60–85 Failed 17–17 — Failed [194]
2017–18 LD 156 Failed 66–73 Failed 14–21 — Failed [195]
2019–20 LD 816 Failed 66–76 Passed 19–16 — Failed [122]
Passed 77–69 Insisted 21–14
Enactment failed 68–79 Enacted 18–16
Enactment failed 69–74 Insisted on enactment
Maryland 10 2007 HB 148 Passed 85–54 Passed 29–17 Signed Law [196]
SB 634 Passed 84–54 Passed 29–17 [197]
Massachusetts 12 2007–08 H 4952 Passed 116–37 Passed —[e] Failed [199]
Enacted Enactment not voted
2009–10 H 4156 Passed 114–35 Passed 28–10 Signed Law [200]
Enacted 116–34 Enacted 28–9
Michigan 17 2007–08 HB 6610 Passed 65–36 Died in committee — Failed [201]
Minnesota 10 2013–14 HF 799 Failed 62–71 — — Failed [202]
2019–20 SF 2227 Passed 73–58 Not voted[f] — Failed [203]
Montana 3 2007 SB 290 — Failed 20–30 — Failed [204]
Nevada 5 2009 AB 413 Passed 27–14 Died in committee — Failed [205]
6 2019 AB 186 Passed 23–17 Passed 12–8 Vetoed Failed [206]
New Hampshire 4 2017–18 HB 447 Failed 132–234 — — Failed [207]
New Jersey 15 2006–07 A 4225 Passed 43–32 Passed 22–13 Signed Law [117]
New Mexico 5 2009 HB 383 Passed 41–27 Died in committee — Failed [208]
2017 SB 42 Died in committee Passed 26–16 — Failed [209]
2019 HB 55 Passed 41–27 Passed 25–16 Signed Law [210]
New York 31 2009–10 S02286 Not voted Passed — Failed [211]
29 2011–12 S04208 Not voted Passed — Failed [212]
2013–14 A04422 Passed 100–40 Died in committee — Failed [213]
S03149 Passed 102–33 Passed 57–4 Signed Law [214]
North Carolina 15 2007–08 S954 Died in committee Passed 30–18 — Failed [118]
North Dakota 3 2007 HB 1336 Failed 31–60 — — Failed [215]
Oklahoma 7 2013–14 SB 906 Died in committee Passed 28–18 — Failed [216]
Oregon 7 2009 HB 2588 Passed 39–19 Died in committee — Failed [217]
2013 HB 3077 Passed 38–21 Died in committee — Failed [218]
2015 HB 3475 Passed 37–21 Died in committee — Failed [219]
2017 HB 2927 Passed 34–23 Died in committee — Failed [220]
2019 SB 870 Passed 37–22 Passed 17–12 Signed Law [221]
Rhode Island 4 2008 H 7707 Passed 36–34 Passed Vetoed Failed [222][223]
S 2112 Passed 34–28 Passed Vetoed Failed [222][224]
2009 H 5569 Failed 28–45 — — Failed [225][226]
S 161 Died in committee Passed — Failed [225]
2011 S 164 Died in committee Passed — Failed [227]
2013 H 5575 Passed 41–31 Passed 32–5 Signed Law [228][229]
S 346 Passed 48–21 Passed 32–4 [228][230]
Vermont 3 2007–08 S 270 Passed 77–35 Passed 22–6 Vetoed Failed [231]
2009–10 S 34 Died in committee Passed 15–10 — Failed [232]
2011–12 S 31 Passed 85–44 Passed 20–10 Signed Law [233]
Virginia 13 2020 HB 177 Passed 51–46 Died in committee — Failed [234]
Washington 11 2007–08 SB 5628 Died in committee Passed 30–18 — Failed [235]
2009–10 SB 5599 Passed 52–42 Passed 28–21 Signed Law [236]

Referendums edit

State EVs Year In favor Opposed Ref.
Colorado 9 2020 52.33% 47.67% [237]

See also edit

Notes edit

  1. ^ Each state's electoral votes are equal to the sum of its seats in both houses of Congress. The allocation of House seats, which is nominally proportional to population, has been distorted by the fixed size of the House since 1929 and the requirement that each state have at least one representative. Each state has two Senate seats regardless of population. Both factors favor less populous states.[18]
  2. ^ Congress did not enact a joint resolution objecting to the passage of DC's bill during the 30-day congressional review period following passage, thus allowing the District's action to proceed.[128]
  3. ^ The NPVIC was incorporated into HF 1830, the House's version of the state's omnibus budget bill, which passed the House on April 18, 2023. The Senate amended the bill's text to SF 1426, the Senate's companion bill, which does not contain the NPVIC, and passed the amended version on April 20, 2023.[162] The bill's text was reconciled by conference committee on May 18, 2023, and includes the NPVIC. The revised bill was passed by the House and Senate on May 19, 2023.
  4. ^ Nevada's AJR 6 has been passed by the 2023 Legislature. Because it amends the Nevada Constitution to adopt the NPVIC, it must also be passed by the 2025 Legislature, and then a statewide vote (expected in 2026) to be enacted. It does not require approval by the Governor.
  5. ^ Although the bill passed both houses, the Senate vote to send the bill to the Governor did not take place before the end of the legislative session.[198]
  6. ^ This omnibus bill was passed by the Senate without the NPVIC, then amended by the House to include it and sent to conference committee. However, it was not further considered before the legislature adjourned.

References edit

  1. ^ a b Progress in the States May 2, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, National Popular Vote.
  2. ^ "National Popular Vote". National Conference of State Legislatures. NCSL. March 11, 2015. from the original on December 17, 2015. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
  3. ^ a b Brody, Michael (February 17, 2013). "Circumventing the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under the Compact Clause". Legislation and Policy Brief. Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. 5 (1): 33, 35. from the original on March 27, 2015. Retrieved September 11, 2014.
  4. ^ McPherson v. Blacker 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
  5. ^ a b "Text of the National Popular Vote Compact Bill". National Popular Vote. May 5, 2019. from the original on May 6, 2019. Retrieved May 6, 2019.
  6. ^ . FairVote. Archived from the original on June 2, 2006. Retrieved June 11, 2008.
  7. ^ a b c "Drop Out of the College". The New York Times. March 14, 2006. from the original on June 15, 2015. Retrieved June 11, 2008.
  8. ^ "Electoral College is outdated". Denver Post. April 9, 2007. from the original on January 8, 2008. Retrieved June 11, 2008.
  9. ^ a b Hill, David; McKee, Seth C. (2005). "The Electoral College, Mobilization, and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election". American Politics Research. 33 (5): 33:700–725. doi:10.1177/1532673X04271902. S2CID 154991830.
  10. ^ Lopez, Mark Hugo; Kirby, Emily; Sagoff, Jared (July 2005). "The Youth Vote 2004" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on June 26, 2008. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  11. ^ "national-1789-present - United States Elections Project". ElectProject.org. from the original on July 25, 2014. Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  12. ^ Edwards III, George C. (2011). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (Second ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 1, 37, 61, 176–77, 193–94. ISBN 978-0-300-16649-1.
  13. ^ "U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions". Archives.gov. from the original on December 18, 2008. Retrieved December 20, 2017.
  14. ^ Sean Trende (October 19, 2012). "Did JFK Lose the Popular Vote?". RealClearPolitics. from the original on April 18, 2019. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
  15. ^ . Los Angeles Times. June 5, 2006. Archived from the original on October 21, 2007. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  16. ^ "A fix for the Electoral College". The Boston Globe. February 18, 2008. from the original on July 26, 2008. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  17. ^ "How to drop out of the Electoral College: There's a way to ensure top vote-getter becomes president". Star Tribune. Minneapolis. March 27, 2006. from the original on March 2, 2017. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  18. ^ a b c "Electoral College should be maintained". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. April 29, 2007. from the original on October 5, 2011. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  19. ^ a b c d du Pont, Pete (August 29, 2006). . Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 1, 2009. Retrieved February 1, 2012.
  20. ^ . Archived from the original on July 18, 2011.
  21. ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 410.
  22. ^ "Myth: The Electoral College acts as a buffer against popular passions". National Popular Vote. January 19, 2019. from the original on May 18, 2020. Retrieved November 7, 2019.
  23. ^ Beinart, Peter (November 21, 2016). "The Electoral College Was Meant to Stop Men Like Trump From Being President". The Atlantic. from the original on July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  24. ^ "Faithless Elector State Laws". Fair Vote. from the original on December 19, 2016. Retrieved March 4, 2020.
  25. ^ "Laws Binding Electors". from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2020.
  26. ^ "U.S. Supreme Court restricts 'faithless electors' in presidential contests". Reuters. July 6, 2020. from the original on July 6, 2020. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  27. ^ "Who Picks the President?" (PDF). FairVote. (PDF) from the original on July 23, 2012. Retrieved November 9, 2011.
  28. ^ "National Popular Vote". FairVote. Archived from the original on October 4, 2012. Retrieved July 20, 2010.
  29. ^ a b c "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote" (PDF). National Popular Vote. June 1, 2007. (PDF) from the original on May 6, 2019. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  30. ^ "Statewide Election Recounts, 2000–2009". FairVote. from the original on April 3, 2012. Retrieved May 3, 2012.
  31. ^ "Myth: There is no mechanism for conducting a national recount". National Popular Vote. January 20, 2019. from the original on April 21, 2019. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  32. ^ a b c Silver, Nate (November 14, 2016). "Will The Electoral College Doom The Democrats Again?". FiveThirtyEight. from the original on April 3, 2019. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  33. ^ Anuzis, Saul (May 26, 2006). "Anuzis: Conservatives need the popular vote". Washington Times. from the original on May 29, 2011. Retrieved June 3, 2011.
  34. ^ "California should join the popular vote parade". Los Angeles Times. July 16, 2011. from the original on May 18, 2020. Retrieved June 6, 2019.
  35. ^ Hertzberg, Hendrik (June 13, 2011). "Misguided "objectivity" on n.p.v". New Yorker. from the original on June 17, 2011. Retrieved June 21, 2011.
  36. ^ . November 6, 2000. Archived from the original on January 12, 2008. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  37. ^ Timothy Noah (December 13, 2000). "Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection"". Slate.com. from the original on March 8, 2008. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  38. ^ Longley, Lawrence D.; Peirce, Neal (1999). . Yale University Press. Archived from the original on June 6, 2011.
  39. ^ Levinson, Sanford (2006). . Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on March 28, 2008.
  40. ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 - July 5". from the original on May 19, 2020. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  41. ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 - July 9". from the original on May 17, 2020. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  42. ^ a b c "An act to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 6920) to Part 2 of Division 6 of the Elections Code, relating to presidential elections". California Office of Legislative Counsel. from the original on March 30, 2019. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
  43. ^ "NewsWatch". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. April 24, 2007. from the original on October 5, 2011. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  44. ^ . Hawaii Reporter. April 11, 2007. Archived from the original on January 10, 2008. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  45. ^ a b c "9.7.3 MYTH: A national popular vote will result in a proliferation of candidates, Presidents being elected with as little as 15% of the vote, and a breakdown of the two-party system". NationalPopularVote.com. January 19, 2019. from the original on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  46. ^ Morningstar, Bernard L. (September 7, 2019). "Abolishing Electoral College is a bad idea". Frederick News-Post. from the original on August 4, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  47. ^ "Map of state voting law differences". USA Facts. August 22, 2022. from the original on December 25, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2022.
  48. ^ "Myths about Logistical Nightmares Arising from Differences in State Laws". NationalPopularVote.com. National Popular Vote Inc. January 19, 2019. Retrieved June 12, 2023.
  49. ^ Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 24.
  50. ^ Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 517–518 (1893)
  51. ^ New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363, 469 (1976)
  52. ^ United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452, 468 (1978)
  53. ^ Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 440 (1981)
  54. ^ Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Governors, FRS, 472 U.S. 159, 175–176 (1985)
  55. ^ Florida v. Georgia, 58 U.S. 478, 494 (1855)
  56. ^ Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, No. 141-orig, 585 U.S. ___, slip op. at 4 (2018)
  57. ^ Florida v. Georgia, 58 U.S. 478, 494 (1855)
  58. ^ Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, No. 141-orig, 585 U.S. ___, slip op. at 4 (2018)
  59. ^ Hendricks, Jennifer S. (July 1, 2008). "Popular Election of the President: Using or Abusing the Electoral College?". Election Law Journal. 7 (3): 218–236. doi:10.1089/elj.2008.7306. SSRN 1030385.
  60. ^ Turflinger, Bradley T. (2011). "Fifty Republics and the National Popular Vote: How the Guarantee Clause Should Protect States Striving for Equal Protection in Presidential Elections". Valparaiso University Law Review. Valco Scholar. 45 (3): 795, 798, 833–843. from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
  61. ^ Schleifer, Adam (2007). "Interstate Agreement for Electoral Reform". Akron Law Review. 40 (4): 717–749. from the original on May 18, 2020. Retrieved April 17, 2019.
  62. ^ Muller, Derek T. (November 2007). "The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Election Law Journal. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 6 (4): 372–393. doi:10.1089/elj.2007.6403. S2CID 53380514.
  63. ^ Muller, Derek T. (2008). "More Thoughts on the Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote: A Response to Professor Hendricks". Election Law Journal. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 7 (3): 227–233. doi:10.1089/elj.2008.7307. SSRN 2033853.
  64. ^ Drake, Ian J. (September 20, 2013). "Federal Roadblocks: The Constitution and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Publius: The Journal of Federalism. Oxford University Press. 44 (4): 690–691. doi:10.1093/publius/pjt037.
  65. ^ Drake, Ian J. (September 20, 2013). "Federal Roadblocks: The Constitution and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Publius: The Journal of Federalism. Oxford University Press. 44 (4): 691–693. doi:10.1093/publius/pjt037.
  66. ^ a b Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534, 544–545 (1934)
  67. ^ Gamboa 2001, pp. 7–9.
  68. ^ Neale & Nolan 2019, pp. 25–26.
  69. ^ Drake, Ian J. (September 20, 2013). "Federal Roadblocks: The Constitution and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Publius: The Journal of Federalism. Oxford University Press. 44 (4): 697–698. doi:10.1093/publius/pjt037.
  70. ^ "9.16 Myths about Interstate Compacts and Congressional Consent – 9.16.5 MYTH". National Popular Vote. January 20, 2019. from the original on May 6, 2019. Retrieved May 5, 2019.
  71. ^ Amar, Vikram (2011). "Response: The Case for Reforming Presidential Elections by Subconstitutional Means: The Electoral College, the National Popular Vote Compact, and Congressional Power". The Georgetown Law Journal. Georgetown University Law Center. 100 (1): 237–259. SSRN 1936374. from the original on May 18, 2020. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  72. ^ Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 30.
  73. ^ Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
  74. ^ Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)
  75. ^ Gamboa 2001, pp. 9–10.
  76. ^ Rossiter 2003, pp. 561–564, 566, 568.
  77. ^ Wilson, Jennings (2006). "Bloc Voting in the Electoral College: How the Ignored States Can Become Relevant and Implement Popular Election Along the Way". Election Law Journal. Mary Ann Liebert. 5 (4): 384–409. doi:10.1089/elj.2006.5.384. from the original on November 7, 2021. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
  78. ^ Natelson, Robert (February 4, 2019). "Why the "National Popular Vote" scheme is unconstitutional". Independence Institute. from the original on April 12, 2019. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
  79. ^ Millhiser, Ian (July 6, 2020). "The Supreme Court decides not to make the Electoral College even worse". Vox. Vox Media. from the original on July 6, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  80. ^ Liptak, Adam (July 7, 2020). "States May Curb 'Faithless Electors,' Supreme Court Rules". The New York Times. p. A1. from the original on July 11, 2020. Retrieved July 11, 2020.
  81. ^ Litt, David (July 7, 2020). "The Supreme Court Just Pointed Out the Absurdity of the Electoral College. It's Up to Us to End It". time.com. Time. Retrieved July 15, 2020.
  82. ^ Astor, Maggie; Stevens, Matt (July 7, 2020). "Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court?". The New York Times. from the original on August 10, 2020. Retrieved July 15, 2020.
  83. ^ Fadem, Barry (July 14, 2020). "Supreme Court's "faithless electors" decision validates case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Brookings Institution. from the original on July 17, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  84. ^ Muller, Derek (July 7, 2020). "Avoiding the temptation to overread Chiafalo v. Washington". Excess of Democracy. Retrieved July 15, 2020.
  85. ^ Neale & Nolan 2019, pp. 28–29.
  86. ^ "Americans Have Historically Favored Changing Way Presidents are Elected". Gallup. November 10, 2000. from the original on January 1, 2008. Retrieved June 11, 2008.
  87. ^ "Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University: Survey of Political Independents" (PDF). The Washington Post. (PDF) from the original on March 6, 2008. Retrieved June 11, 2008.
  88. ^ Swift, Art (December 2, 2016). "Americans' Support for Electoral College Rises Sharply". Gallup. from the original on April 1, 2019. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  89. ^ "5. The Electoral College, Congress and representation". Pew Research Center. April 26, 2018. from the original on April 6, 2019. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  90. ^ "61% of Americans Support Abolishing Electoral College". Gallup. September 24, 2020. from the original on September 29, 2020. Retrieved September 28, 2020.
  91. ^ "Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College". Pew Research Center. August 5, 2022. from the original on August 6, 2022. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  92. ^ Keyssar 2020, pp. 14–35.
  93. ^ Neale & Nolan 2019, pp. 1–2.
  94. ^ a b c Keyssar 2020, p. 5.
  95. ^ a b Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 1.
  96. ^ a b c d e f g h Laurent, Thibault; Le Breton, Michel; Lepelley, Dominique; de Mouzon, Olivier (April 2019). "Exploring the Effects on the Electoral College of National and Regional Popular Vote Interstate Compact: An Electoral Engineering Perspective". Public Choice. 179 (n° 1): 51–95. doi:10.1007/s11127-018-0576-7. ISSN 0048-5829. S2CID 158874172. from the original on November 7, 2021. Retrieved November 23, 2020. (PDF January 9, 2021, at the Wayback Machine)
  97. ^ a b Keyssar 2020, p. 7.
  98. ^ Keyssar 2020, p. 6.
  99. ^ Keyssar 2020, pp. 7, 36-68 & 101-119; Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 1.
  100. ^ Keyssar 2020, p. 208.
  101. ^ Keyssar 2020, pp. 120–176; Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 4.
  102. ^ Warren Weaver Jr. (March 23, 1977). "Carter Proposes End of Electoral College in Presidential Votes". New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2022.
  103. ^ Keyssar 2020, pp. 178–207; Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 4.
  104. ^ Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 5.
  105. ^ Neale & Nolan 2019, pp. 5–7.
  106. ^ a b c d e f Keyssar 2020, p. 195.
  107. ^ Bennett, Robert W. (Spring 2001). "Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment" (PDF). The Green Bag. 4 (3). SSRN 261057. (PDF) from the original on August 14, 2019. Retrieved January 17, 2019.
  108. ^ a b c d e f g h i Keyssar 2020, p. 196.
  109. ^ Amar, Akhil Reed; Amar, Vikram David (December 28, 2001). "How to Achieve Direct National Election of the President Without Amending the Constitution: Part Three Of A Three-part Series On The 2000 Election And The Electoral College". Findlaw. from the original on December 3, 2020. Retrieved November 25, 2020.
  110. ^ Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 6.
  111. ^ Keyssar 2020, p. 195; Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 8.
  112. ^ a b c d Neale & Nolan 2019, p. 8.
  113. ^ Keyssar 2020, p. 198.
  114. ^ "Progress in Arkansas". National Popular Vote Inc. 2009. from the original on February 13, 2016. Retrieved June 6, 2008.
  115. ^ a b "Summarized History for Bill Number SB07-046". Colorado Legislature. 2007. from the original on May 17, 2011. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  116. ^ a b c "Bill Status of HB1685". Illinois General Assembly. from the original on August 1, 2010. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  117. ^ a b "Bill Search (Bill A4225 from Session 2006–07)". New Jersey Legislature. from the original on June 4, 2008. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  118. ^ a b "Senate Bill 954". North Carolina. 2008. from the original on December 24, 2008. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  119. ^ a b "Hawaii SB 1956, 2007". from the original on June 3, 2008. Retrieved June 6, 2008.
  120. ^ a b "Maryland sidesteps electoral college". NBC News. April 11, 2007. from the original on April 17, 2014. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  121. ^ . Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak. Archived from the original on May 30, 2019. Retrieved May 30, 2019.
  122. ^ a b "Actions for LD 816". Maine Legislature. from the original on February 20, 2019. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  123. ^ a b "Elections Legislation Database". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved February 5, 2023.
  124. ^ "New Jersey Rejects Electoral College". CBS News. CBS. January 13, 2008. from the original on May 25, 2008. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  125. ^ a b "Hawaii SB 2898, 2008". Hawaii State Legislature. from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  126. ^ "Progress in Washington". National Popular Vote Inc. February 2016. from the original on January 28, 2019. Retrieved January 28, 2019.
  127. ^ "Progress in Massachusetts". National Popular Vote Inc. February 2016. from the original on January 28, 2019. Retrieved January 28, 2019.
  128. ^ "How a Bill Becomes a Law – Council of the District of Columbia". dccouncil.gov. Council of the District of Columbia. Retrieved August 31, 2023.
  129. ^ "Progress in District of Columbia". National Popular Vote Inc. February 2016. from the original on January 28, 2019. Retrieved January 28, 2019.
  130. ^ "Progress in Vermont". National Popular Vote Inc. February 2016.
  131. ^ a b "An act to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 6920) to Part 2 of Division 6 of the Elections Code, relating to presidential elections". California Office of Legislative Counsel. from the original on March 24, 2019. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
  132. ^ "Progress in Rhode Island". National Popular Vote Inc. February 2016. from the original on January 28, 2019. Retrieved January 28, 2019.
  133. ^ . governor.ny.gov. September 29, 2014. Archived from the original on November 3, 2014. Retrieved April 15, 2014.
  134. ^ "The Office of Governor Dannel P. Malloy – Bill Notifications" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on May 25, 2018. Retrieved May 24, 2018.
  135. ^ "Gov. Polis Signs Bills Into Law". Colorado Governor Polis Official Site. from the original on March 18, 2019. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
  136. ^ Chase, Randall (March 28, 2019). . Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 28, 2019. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
  137. ^ McKay, Dan (April 3, 2019). "Expungement, Electoral College bills signed by governor". Albuquerque Journal. from the original on April 3, 2019. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  138. ^ "Governor signs bill to change the way Oregon helps choose the president". OregonLive. June 12, 2019. from the original on June 12, 2019. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
  139. ^ "Gov. Walz, Democrats and advocates celebrate $72 billion budget". Star Tribune. May 24, 2023. Retrieved May 24, 2023.
  140. ^ "Bureau of Corporations, Elections & Commissions". Maine.gov. from the original on January 8, 2018. Retrieved December 21, 2017.
  141. ^ "Maine National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Initiative (2018) - Ballotpedia". from the original on November 8, 2018. Retrieved December 21, 2017.
  142. ^ "2018 Initiatives, Referendums & Recalls". from the original on April 28, 2018. Retrieved December 21, 2017.
  143. ^ "Arizona National Popular Vote Interstate Agreement Initiative (2018) - Ballotpedia". from the original on May 9, 2017. Retrieved December 21, 2017.
  144. ^ IT, Missouri Secretary of State -. "2018 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri". sos.mo.gov. from the original on July 10, 2017. Retrieved December 21, 2017.
  145. ^ "Missouri National Popular Vote Interstate Agreement Initiative (2018) - Ballotpedia". from the original on May 9, 2017. Retrieved December 21, 2017.
  146. ^ "Colorado Election: Proposition 113 Results". Secretary of State of Colorado. from the original on March 22, 2021. Retrieved November 11, 2020.
  147. ^ Silver, Nate (April 17, 2014). "Why a Plan to Circumvent the Electoral College Is Probably Doomed". FiveThirtyEight. ESPN. from the original on October 30, 2014. Retrieved July 17, 2014.
  148. ^ "New York". National Popular Vote. January 19, 2016. from the original on August 8, 2018. Retrieved August 7, 2018.
  149. ^ "National Popular Vote!". National Popular Vote. December 17, 2015. from the original on August 8, 2018. Retrieved August 7, 2018.
  150. ^ Rakich, Nathaniel (March 5, 2019). "The Movement To Skip The Electoral College Is About To Pass A Major Milestone". FiveThirtyEight.com. from the original on March 8, 2019. Retrieved March 18, 2019.
  151. ^ "North Dakota Bill Versions: SB 2271". North Dakota State Government. 2021. from the original on February 26, 2021. Retrieved March 19, 2021.
  152. ^ a b "North Dakota Bill Actions: SB 2271". North Dakota State Government. 2021. from the original on April 9, 2021. Retrieved March 19, 2021.
  153. ^ "Testimony for Bill 2271 | Legislative Assembly: State of North Dakota". North Dakota State Government. 2021. from the original on February 26, 2021. Retrieved March 19, 2021.
  154. ^ Muder, Doug (March 1, 2021). "North Dakota Is About to Kill the National Popular Vote Compact". The Weekly Sift. from the original on March 3, 2021. Retrieved March 19, 2021.
  155. ^ "SB 61". Alaska Legislature. Retrieved May 3, 2023.
  156. ^ "SB 1485". Arizona Legislature. Retrieved March 6, 2023.
  157. ^ "HB 53". Florida House of Representatives. Retrieved March 18, 2023.
  158. ^ "SB 860: Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote". The Florida Senate. Retrieved February 28, 2023.
  159. ^ "131st Maine Legislature, First Special Session". Maine Legislature. Retrieved May 27, 2023.
  160. ^ "House Bill 4156 (2023)". Michigan Legislature. Retrieved March 7, 2023.
  161. ^ "Senate Bill 0126 (2023)". Michigan Legislature. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
  162. ^ "Journal of the Senate, April 19 2023" (PDF). Minnesota Legislature. Retrieved April 21, 2023.
  163. ^ "HF 1830". Minnesota Legislature. Retrieved April 18, 2023.
  164. ^ "SF 538". Minnesota Legislature. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  165. ^ "SF 1362". Minnesota Legislature. Retrieved April 26, 2023.
  166. ^ "House Bill 491". Mississippi Legislature. Retrieved February 28, 2023.
  167. ^ "HB 829". Missouri Legislature. Retrieved May 14, 2023.
  168. ^ "HB 997". Missouri Legislature. Retrieved May 14, 2023.
  169. ^ "AJR6". NELIS. Nevada State Legislature; Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
  170. ^ "House Bill 191 (2023-2024 Session)". North Carolina Legislature. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
  171. ^ "H 3240 General Bill, By Cobb-Hunter". www.scstatehouse.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2023.
  172. ^ "H 3807 General Bill, By Hart". www.scstatehouse.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2023.
  173. ^ "HB 237". Texas Legislature. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  174. ^ "SB 95". Texas Legislature. Retrieved February 16, 2023.
  175. ^ "AB156". Wisconsin Legislature.
  176. ^ "SB 144". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved April 4, 2023.
  177. ^ "House Bill 2456". Arizona State Legislature. 2016. from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  178. ^ "HB1703 - An Act to Adopt the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote". Arkansas General Assembly. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  179. ^ "HB1339 - An Act to Adopt the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote". Arkansas General Assembly. from the original on March 11, 2012. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  180. ^ "An act to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 6920) to Part 2 of Division 6 of the Elections Code, relating to presidential elections". California Office of Legislative Counsel. from the original on March 30, 2019. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
  181. ^ "Summarized History for Bill Number SB06-223". Colorado General Assembly. from the original on August 8, 2007. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  182. ^ "Summarized History for Bill Number HB09-1299". Colorado General Assembly. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  183. ^ . Colorado General Assembly. Archived from the original on February 2, 2019. Retrieved February 1, 2019.
  184. ^ "Raised H.B. No. 6437". Connecticut General Assembly. from the original on April 25, 2009. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  185. ^ "Raised H.B. No. 5421". Connecticut General Assembly. from the original on March 14, 2018. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  186. ^ "House Bill 198". Delaware General Assembly. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  187. ^ "House Bill 55". Delaware General Assembly. from the original on December 29, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  188. ^ "Senate Bill 22". Delaware General Assembly. from the original on February 28, 2019. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  189. ^ "B18-0769 - National Popular Vote Interstate Agreement Act of 2010". Council of the District of Columbia. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  190. ^ "HB3013 HD1". Hawaii State Legislature. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved November 10, 2016.
  191. ^ "Bill Status of HB0858". Illinois General Assembly. from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  192. ^ "HB1095". Louisiana State Legislature. from the original on December 26, 2016. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  193. ^ "Actions for LD 1744". Maine Legislature. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  194. ^ "Actions for LD 511". Maine Legislature. from the original on April 8, 2014. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  195. ^ "Summary of LD 156". Maine Legislature. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved January 17, 2019.
  196. ^ "House Bill 148". Maryland General Assembly. 2007. from the original on June 8, 2019. Retrieved February 14, 2018.
  197. ^ "Senate Bill 654". Maryland General Assembly. 2007. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved February 14, 2018.
  198. ^ Viser, Matt (August 1, 2008). "Legislature agrees to back Pike finances". The Boston Globe. from the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved August 11, 2008.
  199. ^ . General Court of Massachusetts. 2008. Archived from the original on October 12, 2012.
  200. ^ "Bill H.4156". General Court of Massachusetts. 2010. from the original on September 24, 2020. Retrieved February 14, 2018.
  201. ^ "House Bill 6610 (2008)". Michigan Legislature. 2008. from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved December 11, 2008.
  202. ^ "HF0799 Status in House for Legislative Session 88". 2013. from the original on November 7, 2021. Retrieved April 11, 2013.
  203. ^ "SF 2227". Minnesota Legislature. from the original on May 1, 2019. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  204. ^ "Detailed Bill Information (SB290)". Montana Legislature. 2007. from the original on November 16, 2018. Retrieved December 25, 2016.
  205. ^ "AB413". Nevada Legislature. from the original on April 29, 2009. Retrieved April 22, 2009.
  206. ^ "Assembly Bill 186". Nevada Legislature. from the original on February 20, 2019. Retrieved February 19, 2019.
  207. ^ "HB447". New Hampshire General Court. from the original on November 23, 2018. Retrieved January 17, 2019.
  208. ^ "HB 383". New Mexico Legislature. 2009. from the original on March 30, 2019. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  209. ^ "Legislation - New Mexico Legislature". NMLegis.gov. from the original on March 30, 2019. Retrieved January 6, 2018.
  210. ^ "House Bill 55". New Mexico Legislature. from the original on January 4, 2019. Retrieved January 3, 2019.
  211. ^ "S02286". New York State Assembly. 2009. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  212. ^ "S4208 Summary". New York State Assembly. 2011. from the original on October 8, 2012. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  213. ^ "A04422 Summary". New York State Assembly. 2013. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  214. ^ "S03149 Summary". New York State Assembly. 2014. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  215. ^ "Measure Actions". North Dakota State Government. 2007. from the original on November 14, 2016. Retrieved December 25, 2016.
  216. ^ "SB906 Status in Oklahoma Senate". Oklahoma Senate. 2014. from the original on March 6, 2014. Retrieved March 17, 2014.
  217. ^ "Oregon Legislative Information System". olis.leg.state.or.us. from the original on August 16, 2016. Retrieved July 4, 2016.
  218. ^ "HB 3077". Oregon State Legislature. 2013. from the original on January 16, 2016. Retrieved April 10, 2013.
  219. ^ "House Bill 3475". Oregon State Legislature. 2015. from the original on June 22, 2015. Retrieved May 20, 2015.
  220. ^ HB 2927 February 16, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Oregon State Legislature.
  221. ^ "Senate Bill 870". Oregon State Legislature. from the original on February 27, 2019. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
  222. ^ a b "Legislative Status Report (see 7707, 2112)". Rhode Island Legislature. 2008. from the original on July 3, 2013. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  223. ^ 08H 7707 February 22, 2018, at the Wayback Machine, Rhode Island General Assembly.
  224. ^ 08S 2112 February 22, 2018, at the Wayback Machine, Rhode Island General Assembly.
  225. ^ a b "Legislative status report". Rhode Island Legislature. 2009. from the original on July 3, 2013. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  226. ^ 09H 5569 February 22, 2018, at the Wayback Machine, Rhode Island General Assembly.
  227. ^ "Legislative status report (look for 164 in 2011)". Rhode Island Legislature. 2011. from the original on July 3, 2013. Retrieved January 23, 2012.
  228. ^ a b "Legislative Status Report (search for bills 5575, 346)". Rhode Island General Assembly. from the original on July 3, 2013. Retrieved August 29, 2022.
  229. ^ 2013-H 5575 February 22, 2018, at the Wayback Machine, Rhode Island General Assembly.
  230. ^ 2013-S 346 Sub A February 22, 2018, at the Wayback Machine, Rhode Island General Assembly.
  231. ^ "The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.270)". Vermont General Assembly. from the original on June 24, 2016. Retrieved February 19, 2018.
  232. ^ "S.34". Vermont General Assembly. from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2018.
  233. ^ "S.31". Vermont Legislature. from the original on March 30, 2019. Retrieved February 19, 2018.
  234. ^ "HB 177". Virginia's Legislative Information System. from the original on March 11, 2020. Retrieved December 28, 2019.
  235. ^ "SB5628". Washington Legislature. 2008. from the original on April 19, 2008. Retrieved July 13, 2008.
  236. ^ "SB5599, 2009". Washington State Legislature. 2009. from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved January 23, 2009.
  237. ^ "Colorado Proposition 113, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Referendum (2020) - Ballotpedia". from the original on October 8, 2021. Retrieved October 8, 2021.
Bundled references
  1. ^ [49][50][51][52][53][54]

Works cited edit

  • Whitaker, L. Paige (May 17, 2023). Campaign Finance Law: An Analysis of Key Issues, Recent Developments, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved June 29, 2023.
  • Report on the Electoral Count Act of 1887: Proposals for Reform (PDF) (Report). United States House Committee on House Administration. 2022. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
  • Keyssar, Alexander (2020). Why do we still have the electoral college?. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674974142. OCLC 1153869791.
  • Neale, Thomas H. (October 22, 2020). The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Election Timeline (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 3, 2023.
  • Whitaker, L. Paige (September 8, 2020). Political Campaign Contributions and Congress: A Legal Primer (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved June 29, 2023.
  • Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
  • Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume II of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 2020b. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
  • Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 2020a. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
  • Neale, Thomas H.; Nolan, Andrew (October 28, 2019). The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved November 10, 2019.
  • Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 2: Russia's Use of Social Media with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. October 2019b. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
  • Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. July 2019a. Retrieved June 21, 2023.
  • Rossiter, Clinton, ed. (2003). The Federalist Papers. Signet Classics. ISBN 9780451528810.
  • Gamboa, Anthony H. (March 13, 2001). Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Administration (PDF) (Report). General Accounting Office. Retrieved June 8, 2023.

External links edit

  • Election Law Journal Symposium on National Popular Vote
  • National Popular Vote
  • Text of the National Popular Vote Compact Bill
  • Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote – read or download the book for free
  • FairVote

October 28, 2023
national, popular, vote, interstate, compact, npvic, agreement, among, group, states, district, columbia, award, their, electoral, votes, whichever, presidential, ticket, wins, overall, popular, vote, states, district, columbia, compact, designed, ensure, that. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact NPVIC is an agreement among a group of U S states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome 2 3 Introduced in 2006 as of August 2023 update it has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia These jurisdictions have 205 electoral votes which is 38 of the Electoral College and 76 of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force National Popular Vote Interstate CompactStatus as of August 2023 update 0 270 538Each square in the cartogram represents one electoral vote Enacted 205 EVs 38 1 of Electoral College Pending 63 EVs 11 7 Neither enacted nor pending 270 EVs 50 2 1 Threshold for activation 270 EVs 50 1 DraftedJanuary 2006EffectiveNot in effectConditionAdoption by states and D C whose electoral votes comprise a majority in the Electoral College The agreement would then be in effect only among them SignatoriesList Maryland New Jersey Illinois Hawaii Washington Massachusetts District of Columbia Vermont California Rhode Island New York Connecticut Colorado Delaware New Mexico Oregon MinnesotaFull textAgreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote at WikisourceCertain legal questions may affect implementation of the compact Some legal observers believe states have plenary power to appoint electors as prescribed by the compact others believe that the compact will require congressional consent under the Constitution s Compact Clause or that the presidential election process cannot be altered except by a constitutional amendment Contents 1 Mechanism 2 Motivation 3 Debate over effects 3 1 Protective function of the Electoral College 3 2 Campaign focus on swing states 3 3 Disputed results and electoral fraud 3 4 Suggested partisan advantage 3 5 State power relative to population 3 6 Irrelevance of state level majorities 3 7 Proliferation of candidates 3 8 State voting law differences 4 Constitutionality 4 1 Compact clause 4 2 Plenary power doctrine 5 History 5 1 Public support for Electoral College reform 5 2 Proposals for constitutional amendment 5 3 Interstate compact plan 5 4 Organization and advocacy 5 5 Adoption 5 5 1 Initiatives and referendums 5 6 Prospects 5 6 1 Novel opposing action by North Dakota 6 Bills and referendums 6 1 Bills in latest session 6 2 Bills receiving floor votes in previous sessions 6 3 Referendums 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References 10 Works cited 11 External linksMechanism editTaking the form of an interstate compact the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes currently at least 270 in the Electoral College Once in effect in each presidential election the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia As a result that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College Until the compact s conditions are met all states award electoral votes in their current manner The compact would modify the way participating states implement Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U S Constitution which requires each state legislature to define a method to appoint its electors to vote in the Electoral College The Constitution does not mandate any particular legislative scheme for selecting electors and instead vests state legislatures with the exclusive power to choose how to allocate their states electors although systems that violate the 14th Amendment which mandates equal protection of the law and prohibits racial discrimination are prohibited 3 4 States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years with regular changes in the nation s early decades Today all but two states Maine and Nebraska award all their electoral votes to the single candidate with the most votes statewide the so called winner take all system Maine and Nebraska currently award one electoral vote to the winner in each congressional district and their remaining two electoral votes to the statewide winner The compact would no longer be in effect should the total number of electoral votes held by the participating states fall below the threshold required which could occur due to withdrawal of one or more states changes due to the decennial congressional re apportionment or an increase in the size of Congress for example by admittance of a 51st state The compact mandates a July 20 deadline in presidential election years six months before Inauguration Day to determine whether the agreement is in effect for that particular election Any withdrawal by a participating state after that deadline will not become effective until the next President is confirmed 5 Motivation editSee also United States Electoral College Contemporary issues and United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote Reasons given for the compact include 1 State winner take all laws encourage candidates to focus disproportionately on a limited set of swing states and in the case of Maine and Nebraska swing districts as small changes in the popular vote in those areas produce large changes in the electoral college vote For example in the 2016 election a shift of 2 736 votes or less than 0 4 of all votes cast toward Donald Trump in New Hampshire would have produced a four electoral vote gain for his campaign A similar shift in any other state would have produced no change in the electoral vote thus encouraging the campaign to focus on New Hampshire above other states A study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states while the other 45 states received very little attention The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising 6 This means that swing state issues receive more attention while issues important to other states are largely ignored 7 8 9 2 State winner take all laws tend to decrease voter turnout in states without close races Voters living outside the swing states have a greater certainty of which candidate is likely to win their state This knowledge of the probable outcome decreases their incentive to vote 7 9 A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement CIRCLE found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64 4 in the ten closest battleground states and only 47 6 in the rest of the country a 17 gap 10 Elections in which the popular vote winner lost Election Election winner Popular vote winner Difference Turnout 11 1824 J Q Adams 30 9 113 122 Jackson 41 4 157 271 10 5 44 149 26 9 1876 Hayes 47 9 4 034 311 Tilden 50 9 4 288 546 3 0 254 235 82 6 1888 Harrison 47 8 5 443 892 Cleveland 48 6 5 534 488 0 8 90 596 80 5 2000 G W Bush 47 9 50 456 002 Gore 48 4 50 999 897 0 5 543 895 54 2 2016 Trump 46 1 62 984 828 H Clinton 48 2 65 853 514 2 1 2 868 686 60 1 3 The current Electoral College system allows a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote an outcome seen as counter to the one person one vote principle of democracy 12 This happened in the elections of 1824 1876 1888 2000 and 2016 13 The 1960 election is also a disputed example 14 In the 2000 election for instance Al Gore won 543 895 more votes nationally than George W Bush but Bush secured five more electors than Gore in part due to a narrow Bush victory in Florida in the 2016 election Hillary Clinton won 2 868 691 more votes nationally than Donald Trump but Trump secured 77 more electors than Clinton in part due to narrow Trump victories in Michigan Pennsylvania and Wisconsin a cumulative 77 744 votes Whether these splits suggest an advantage for one major party or the other in the Electoral College is discussed in Suggested partisan advantage below Debate over effects editThe project has been supported by editorials in newspapers including The New York Times 7 the Chicago Sun Times the Los Angeles Times 15 The Boston Globe 16 and the Minneapolis Star Tribune 17 arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues while a popular election would equalize voting power Others have argued against it including the Honolulu Star Bulletin 18 Pete du Pont a former governor of Delaware in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal called the project an urban power grab that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run 19 A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters 20 Some of the most common points of debate are detailed below Protective function of the Electoral College edit Main articles United States Electoral College Continuity of government and peaceful transitions of power and United States Electoral College Foreign interference and domestic intrigue Certain founders notably Alexander Hamilton conceived of the Electoral College as a deliberative body which would weigh the inputs of the states but not be bound by them in selecting the president and would therefore serve to protect the country from the election of a person who is unfit to be president 21 However the Electoral College has never served such a role in practice From 1796 onward presidential electors have acted as rubber stamps for their parties nominees As of 2020 no election outcome has been determined by an elector deviating from the will of their state 22 Journalist and commentator Peter Beinart has cited the election of Donald Trump whom some he notes view as unfit as evidence that the Electoral College does not perform a protective function 23 Furthermore thirty two states and the District of Columbia have laws to prevent such faithless electors 24 25 and such laws were upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2020 in Chiafalo v Washington 26 The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not eliminate the Electoral College or affect faithless elector laws it merely changes how electors are pledged by the participating states Campaign focus on swing states edit Focus of major party candidates in the final stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign Sept 26 Nov 2 2004 27 Spending on advertising per capita lt 0 50 0 50 1 00 1 00 2 00 2 00 4 00 gt 4 00 Campaign visits per 1 million residents No visits 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 9 0 gt 9 0 nbsp Under the current system campaign focus as measured by spending visits and attention paid to regional or state issues is largely limited to the few swing states whose electoral outcomes are competitive with politically solid states mostly ignored by the campaigns The adjacent maps illustrate the amount spent on advertising and the number of visits to each state relative to population by the two major party candidates in the last stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign Supporters of the compact contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign with equal effort for votes in competitive and non competitive states alike 28 Critics of the compact argue that candidates would have less incentive to focus on states with smaller populations or fewer urban areas and would thus be less motivated to address rural issues 19 29 Disputed results and electoral fraud edit Opponents of the compact have raised concerns about the handling of close or disputed outcomes National Popular Vote contends that an election being decided based on a disputed tally is far less likely under the NPVIC which creates one large nationwide pool of voters than under the current system in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small margin in any one of the fifty one smaller statewide tallies 29 However the national popular vote can be closer than the vote tally within any one state In the event of an exact tie in the nationwide tally NPVIC member states will award their electors to the winner of the popular vote in their state 5 Under the NPVIC each state will continue to handle disputes and statewide recounts as governed by their own laws 30 The NPVIC does not include any provision for a nationwide recount though Congress has the authority to create such a provision 31 Pete du Pont argues that Mr Gore s 540 000 vote margin in the 2000 election amounted to 3 1 votes in each of the country s 175 000 precincts Finding three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing 19 However National Popular Vote contends that altering the outcome via electoral fraud would be more difficult under a national popular vote than under the current system due to the greater number of total votes that would likely need to be changed currently a close election may be determined by the outcome in just one tipping point state and the margin in that state is likely to be far smaller than the nationwide margin due to the smaller pool of voters at the state level and the fact that several states may have close results 29 Suggested partisan advantage edit nbsp Historical partisan advantage in the Electoral College computed as the difference between popular vote margins nationally and in the tipping point state s Positive values indicate a Republican advantage and negative values indicate a Democratic advantage 32 Some supporters and opponents of the NPVIC believe it gives one party an advantage relative to the current Electoral College system Former Delaware Governor Pete du Pont a Republican has argued that the compact would be an urban power grab and benefit Democrats 19 However Saul Anuzis former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party wrote that Republicans need the compact citing what he believes to be the center right nature of the American electorate 33 A statistical analysis by FiveThirtyEight s Nate Silver of all presidential elections from 1864 to 2016 see adjacent chart found that the Electoral College has not consistently favored one major party or the other and that any advantage in the Electoral College does not tend to last long noting that there s almost no correlation between which party has the Electoral College advantage in one election and which has it four years later 32 Although in all four elections since 1876 in which the winner lost the popular vote the Republican became president Silver s analysis shows that such splits are about equally likely to favor either major party 32 A popular vote Electoral College split favoring the Democrat John Kerry nearly occurred in 2004 34 New Yorker essayist Hendrik Hertzberg also concluded that the NPVIC would benefit neither party noting that historically both Republicans and Democrats have been successful in winning the popular vote in presidential elections 35 State power relative to population edit nbsp State population per electoral vote from the 2020 censusThere is some debate over whether the Electoral College favors small or large population states Those who argue that the College favors low population states point out that such states have proportionally more electoral votes relative to their populations a 18 36 In the least populous states with three electors this results in voters having 143 greater voting power than they would under purely proportional allocation while in the most populous state California voters power is 16 smaller than under proportional allocation In contrast the NPVIC would give equal weight to each voter s ballot regardless of what state they live in Others however believe that since most states award electoral votes on a winner takes all system the unit rule the potential of populous states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more clout than would be expected from their electoral vote count alone 37 38 39 Opponents of a national popular vote contend that the Electoral College is a fundamental component of the federal system established by the Constitutional Convention Specifically the Connecticut Compromise established a bicameral legislature with proportional representation of the states in the House of Representatives and equal representation of the states in the Senate as a compromise between less populous states fearful of having their interests dominated and voices drowned out by larger states 40 and larger states which viewed anything other than proportional representation as an affront to principles of democratic representation 41 The ratio of the populations of the most and least populous states is far greater currently 68 50 as of the 2020 census update than when the Connecticut Compromise was adopted 7 35 as of the 1790 census exaggerating the non proportional component of the compromise allocation Irrelevance of state level majorities edit Three governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation Arnold Schwarzenegger of California Linda Lingle of Hawaii and Steve Sisolak of Nevada objected to the compact on the grounds that it could require their states electoral votes to be awarded to a candidate who did not win a majority in their state California and Hawaii have since enacted laws joining the compact Supporters of the compact counter that under a national popular vote system state level majorities are irrelevant in all states votes contribute to the nationwide tally which determines the winner Individual votes combine to directly determine the outcome while the intermediary measure of state level majorities is rendered obsolete 42 43 44 Proliferation of candidates edit Some opponents of the compact contend that it would lead to a proliferation of third party candidates such that an election could be won with a plurality of as little as 15 of the vote 45 46 However evidence from U S gubernatorial and other races in which a plurality results in a win do not bear out this suggestion In the 975 general elections for Governor in the U S between 1948 and 2011 90 of winners received more than 50 of the vote 99 received more than 40 and all received more than 35 45 Duverger s law supports the contention that plurality elections do not generally create a proliferation of minor candidacies with significant vote shares 45 State voting law differences edit Each state sets its own rules for voting including registration deadlines voter ID laws poll closing times conditions for early and absentee voting and disenfranchisement of felons 47 Parties in power have an incentive to create state rules meant to skew the relative turnout for each party in their favor Under NPVIC this incentive may be less than in the current system as the awarding of electoral votes will no longer be determined solely by the votes cast within a given state Under the compact however there may be an incentive for states to create rules that increase their total turnout and thus their impact on the nationwide vote totals In either system the voting rules of each state have the potential to affect the election outcome for the rest of the country 48 Constitutionality editMain article Constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact There is ongoing legal debate about the constitutionality of the NPVIC At issue are interpretations of the Compact Clause of Article I Section X and states plenary power under the Elections Clause of Article II Section I Compact clause edit A 2019 report by the Congressional Research Service examined whether the NPVIC should be considered an interstate compact and as such whether it would require congressional approval to take effect At issue is whether the NPVIC would affect the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments list 1 and the horizontal balance of power between the states 55 56 With respect to vertical balance of power the NPVIC removes the possibility of contingent elections for President conducted by the U S House of Representatives Whether this would be a de minimis diminishment of federal power is unresolved The Supreme Court has also held that congressional consent is required for interstate compacts that alter the horizontal balance of power among the states 57 58 There is debate over whether the NPVIC affects the power of non compacting states with regard to Presidential elections 59 60 61 62 63 64 One law professor has argued that Congress cannot consent to the NPVIC because Congress has no power to alter the functioning of the Electoral College under Article I Section VIII 65 However a report by the General Accounting Office suggests congressional authority is not limited in this way 66 67 66 The CRS report concluded that the NPVIC would likely become the source of considerable litigation and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be involved in any resolution of the constitutional issues surrounding it 68 69 NPV Inc has stated that they plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states 70 Plenary power doctrine edit Proponents of the compact have argued that states have the plenary power to appoint electors in accordance with the national popular vote under the Elections Clause of Article II Section I 71 However the Supreme Court has found limits on the manner in which states may appoint their electors under several Constitutional amendments 72 73 74 75 76 One law professor has argued that the NPVIC would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it does not require uniform election laws across both compacting and non compacting states however NPVIC Inc argues that there is no precedent for claims of interstate violations of the Equal Protection Clause 77 Another legal scholar has argued that by de facto eliminating the disproportionate weight that less populous states have in selecting the President the NPVIC is not compatible in a substantive sense with the Elections Clause of Article I Section IV 78 The Supreme Court has held that states may bind their electors to the state s popular vote enforceable by penalty or removal and replacement 79 80 This has been interpreted by some legal observers as a precedent that states may likewise choose to bind their electors to the national popular vote while other legal observers cautioned against reading the opinion too broadly 81 82 83 84 Due to a lack of a precedent and case law the CRS report concludes that whether states are allowed to appoint their electors in accordance with the national popular vote is an open question 85 History editPublic support for Electoral College reform edit Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority or plurality of Americans support a popular vote for President Gallup polls dating back to 1944 showed consistent majorities of the public supporting a direct vote 86 A 2007 Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 72 favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election including 78 of Democrats 60 of Republicans and 73 of independent voters 87 A November 2016 Gallup poll following the 2016 U S presidential election showed that Americans support for amending the U S Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote fell to 49 with 47 opposed Republican support for replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote dropped significantly from 54 in 2011 to 19 in 2016 which Gallup attributed to a partisan response to the 2016 result where the Republican candidate Donald Trump won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote 88 In March 2018 a Pew Research Center poll showed that 55 of Americans supported replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote with 41 opposed but that a partisan divide remained in that support as 75 of self identified Democrats supported replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote while only 32 of self identified Republicans did 89 A September 2020 Gallup poll showed support for amending the U S Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote rose to 61 with 38 opposed similar to levels prior to the 2016 election although the partisan divide continued with support from 89 of Democrats and 68 of independents but only 23 of Republicans 90 An August 2022 Pew Research Center poll showed 63 support for a national popular vote versus 35 opposed with support from 80 of Democrats and 42 of Republicans 91 Proposals for constitutional amendment edit Further information Electoral College abolition amendment and United States Electoral College Efforts to abolish or reform The Electoral College system was established by Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution drafted in 1787 92 93 It has been a source of discontent for more than 200 years 94 Over 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the system have been introduced in Congress 95 making it one of the most popular topics of constitutional reform 96 97 Electoral College reform and abolition has been advocated by a long roster of mainstream political leaders with disparate political interests and ideologies 98 Proponents of these proposals argued that the electoral college system does not provide for direct democratic election affords less populous states an advantage and allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the most votes 95 Reform amendments were approved by two thirds majorities in one branch of Congress six times in history 97 However other than the 12th Amendment in 1804 none of these proposals have received the approval of two thirds of both branches of Congress and three fourths of the states required to amend the Constitution 99 The difficulty of amending the Constitution has always been the most prominent structural obstacle to reform efforts 100 Since the 1940s when modern scientific polling on the subject began a majority of Americans have preferred changing the electoral college system 94 96 Between 1948 and 1979 Congress debated electoral college reform extensively and hundreds of reform proposals were introduced in the House and Senate During this period Senate and House Judiciary Committees held hearings on 17 different occasions Proposals were debated five times in the Senate and twice in the House and approved by two thirds majorities twice in the Senate and once in the House but never at the same time 101 In the late 1960s and 1970s over 65 of voters supported amending the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote 94 with support peaking at 80 in 1968 after Richard Nixon almost lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College vote 96 A similar situation occurred again with Jimmy Carter s election in 1976 a poll taken weeks after the election found 73 support for eliminating the Electoral College by amendment 96 Carter himself proposed a Constitutional amendment that would include the abolition of the electoral college shortly after taking office in 1977 102 After a direct popular election amendment failed to pass the Senate in 1979 and prominent congressional advocates retired or were defeated in elections electoral college reform subsided from public attention and the number of reform proposals in Congress dwindled 103 Interstate compact plan edit nbsp Distribution of electoral votes following the 2020 censusThe 2000 US presidential election produced the first wrong winner since 1888 with Al Gore winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College vote to George W Bush 104 This electoral misfire sparked new studies and proposals from scholars and activists on electoral college reform ultimately leading to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact NPVIC 105 In 2001 two provocative articles were published by law professors suggesting paths to a national popular vote through state legislative action rather than constitutional amendment 106 The first a paper by Northwestern University law professor Robert W Bennett suggested states could pressure Congress to pass a constitutional amendment by acting together to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote 107 Bennett noted that the 17th Amendment was passed only after states had enacted state level reform measures unilaterally 108 A few months later Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar and his brother University of California Hastings School of Law professor Vikram Amar wrote a paper suggesting states could coordinate their efforts by passing uniform legislation under the Presidential Electors Clause and Compact Clause of the Constitution 109 The legislation could be structured to take effect only once enough states to control a majority of the Electoral College 270 votes joined the compact thereby guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college 108 96 Bennett and the Amar brothers are generally credited as the intellectual godparents of NPVIC 110 Organization and advocacy edit Building on the work of Bennett and the Amar brothers in 2006 John Koza a computer scientist former elector and longtime critic of the Electoral College 106 citation needed created the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact NPVIC a formal interstate compact that linked and unified individual states pledges to commit their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote NPVIC offered a framework for building support one state at a time as well as a legal mechanism for enforcing states commitments after the threshold of 270 had been reached 108 Compacts of this type had long existed to regulate interstate issues such as water rights ports and nuclear waste 108 Koza who had earned substantial wealth by co inventing the scratchcard 106 had worked on lottery compacts such as the Tri State Lottery with an election lawyer Barry Fadem 108 To promote NPVIC Koza Fadem and a group of former Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives formed a California 501 c 4 non profit National Popular Vote Inc NPV Inc 111 96 NPV Inc published Every Vote Equal a detailed 600 page tome 106 explaining and advocating for NPVIC 112 96 and a regular newsletter reporting on activities and encouraging readers to petition their governors and state legislators to pass NPVIC 112 NPV Inc also commissioned statewide opinion polls organized educational seminars for legislators and opinion makers and hired lobbyists in almost every state seriously considering NPVIC legislation 113 NPVIC was announced at a press conference in Washington D C on February 23 2006 112 with the endorsement of former US Senator Birch Bayh Chellie Pingree president of Common Cause Rob Richie executive director of FairVote and former US Representatives John Anderson and John Buchanan 106 NPV Inc announced it planned to introduce legislation in all 50 states and had already done so in Illinois 106 96 To many observers the NPVIC looked initially to be an implausible long shot approach to reform 108 but within months of the campaign s launch several major newspapers including The New York Times and Los Angeles Times published favorable editorials 108 Shortly after the press conference NPVIC legislation was introduced in five additional state legislatures 112 most with bipartisan support 108 It passed in the Colorado Senate and in both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 108 Adoption edit Further information Bills and referendums In 2007 NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 states It was passed by at least one legislative chamber in Arkansas 114 California 42 Colorado 115 Illinois 116 New Jersey 117 North Carolina 118 Maryland and Hawaii 119 Maryland became the first state to join the compact when Governor Martin O Malley signed it into law on April 10 2007 120 NPVIC legislation has been introduced in all 50 states 1 As of August 2023 update the NPVIC has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia notably no Republican governor has yet signed it into law Together they have 205 electoral votes which is 38 1 of the Electoral College and 75 9 of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force In Nevada the legislation passed both chambers in 2019 but was vetoed by Gov Steve Sisolak D on May 30 2019 121 In Maine the legislation also passed both chambers in 2019 but failed the additional enactment vote in the House 122 States where only one chamber has passed the legislation are Arizona Arkansas Michigan North Carolina Oklahoma and Virginia Bills seeking to repeal the compact in Connecticut Maryland New Jersey and Washington have failed 123 Totalelectoralvotes ofadoptivestates 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 MD NJ IL HI WA MA DC VT CA RI NY CT CO DE NM OR MN 205 75 9 of 270 270 electoral votes threshold for activation Firstlegislativeintroduction Reapportionmentbased on2010 census Reapportionmentbased on2020 census nbsp History of state enactment of the NPVIC as of August 2023 update Jurisdictions enacting law to join the National Popular Vote Interstate CompactNo JurisdictionDate adoptedMethod of adoptionRef Currentelectoralvotes EV 1MarylandApril 10 2007Signed by Gov Martin O Malley 120 102New JerseyJanuary 13 2008Signed by Gov Jon Corzine 124 143IllinoisApril 7 2008Signed by Gov Rod Blagojevich 116 194HawaiiMay 1 2008Legislature overrode veto of Gov Linda Lingle 125 45WashingtonApril 28 2009Signed by Gov Christine Gregoire 126 126MassachusettsAugust 4 2010Signed by Gov Deval Patrick 127 117District of ColumbiaOctober 12 2010Signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty b 129 38VermontApril 22 2011Signed by Gov Peter Shumlin 130 39CaliforniaAugust 8 2011Signed by Gov Jerry Brown 131 5410Rhode IslandJuly 12 2013Signed by Gov Lincoln Chafee 132 411New YorkApril 15 2014Signed by Gov Andrew Cuomo 133 2812ConnecticutMay 24 2018Signed by Gov Dannel Malloy 134 713ColoradoMarch 15 2019Signed by Gov Jared Polis 135 1014DelawareMarch 28 2019Signed by Gov John Carney 136 315New MexicoApril 3 2019Signed by Gov Michelle Lujan Grisham 137 516OregonJune 12 2019Signed by Gov Kate Brown 138 817MinnesotaMay 24 2023Signed by Gov Tim Walz 139 10Total205Percentage of the 270 EVs needed75 9 For a detailed history of bills to adopt the compact see Bills and referendums Initiatives and referendums edit In Maine an initiative to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact began collecting signatures on April 17 2016 It failed to collect enough signatures to appear on the ballot 140 141 In Arizona a similar initiative began collecting signatures on December 19 2016 but failed to collect the required 150 642 signatures by July 5 2018 142 143 In Missouri an initiative did not collect the required number of signatures before the deadline of May 6 2018 144 145 Colorado Proposition 113 a ballot measure seeking to overturn Colorado s adoption of the compact was on the November 3 2020 ballot Colorado s membership was affirmed by a vote of 52 3 to 47 7 in the referendum 146 Prospects edit Political analyst Nate Silver noted in 2014 that all jurisdictions that had adopted the compact at that time were blue states all of the states who have joined the compact then and since have given all of their electoral college votes to the Democratic candidate in every Presidential election since the compact s inception and that there were not enough electoral votes from the remaining blue states to achieve the required majority He concluded that as swing states were unlikely to support a compact that reduces their influence the compact could not succeed without adoption by some red states as well 147 Republican led chambers have adopted the measure in New York 2011 148 Oklahoma 2014 and Arizona 2016 and the measure has been unanimously approved by Republican led committees in Georgia and Missouri prior to the 2016 election 149 On March 15 2019 Colorado became the most purple state to join the compact though no Republican legislators supported the bill and Colorado had a state government trifecta under Democrats 150 It was later submitted to a referendum approved by 52 of voters In April 2021 reapportionment following the 2020 census caused NPVIC members California Illinois and New York to each lose one electoral vote and Colorado and Oregon to each gain one causing the total electoral votes represented by members to fall from 196 to 195 Novel opposing action by North Dakota edit On February 17 2021 the North Dakota Senate passed SB 2271 151 to amend and reenact sections relating to procedures for canvassing and counting votes for presidential electors 152 in a deliberate albeit indirect effort to stymie the efficacy of the NPVIC by prohibiting disclosure of the state s popular vote until after the Electoral College meets 153 154 Later the bill was entirely rewritten as only a statement of intent and ordering a study for future recommendations and this version was signed into law 152 Bills and referendums editBills in latest session edit The table below lists all state bills to join the NPVIC introduced in a state s current or most recent legislative session 123 This includes all bills that are law pending or have failed The EVs column indicates the number of electoral votes each state has State EVs Session Bill Latest action Lower house Upper house Executive Status Ref Alaska 3 2023 24 SB 61 May 3 2023 In committee Pending 155 Arizona 11 2023 SB 1485 February 9 2023 Died in committee Failed 156 Florida 30 2023 HB 53 May 5 2023 Died in committee Failed 157 SB 860 May 5 2023 Died in committee 158 Maine 4 2023 24 LD 1578 July 25 2023 In committee In committee Pending 159 Michigan 15 2023 24 HB 4156 June 6 2023 Passed committee Pending 160 SB 126 March 2 2023 In committee 161 Minnesota 10 2023 24 HF 1830 c May 24 2023 Passed 69 62 Passed 34 31 Signed Law 163 SF 538 February 2 2023 Passed committee Pending 164 SF 1362 May 1 2023 Introduced Passed 34 33 165 Mississippi 6 2023 HB 491 January 31 2023 Died in committee Failed 166 Missouri 10 2023 HB 829 May 12 2023 Died in committee Failed 167 HB 997 May 12 2023 Died in committee 168 Nevada 6 2023 AJR 6 May 22 2023 Passed 27 14 Passed 12 9 N A Pending d 169 North Carolina 16 2023 24 HB 191 February 27 2023 In committee Pending 170 South Carolina 9 2023 24 H 3240 January 10 2023 In committee Pending 171 H 3807 January 25 2023 In committee 172 Texas 40 2023 HB 237 February 23 2023 Died in committee Failed 173 SB 95 February 15 2023 Died in committee 174 Wisconsin 10 2023 24 AB 156 April 10 2023 In committee Pending 175 SB 144 July 10 2023 In committee 176 Bills receiving floor votes in previous sessions edit The table below lists past bills that received a floor vote a vote by the full chamber in at least one chamber of the state s legislature Bills that failed without a floor vote are not listed The EVs column indicates the number of electoral votes the state had at the time of the latest vote on the bill This number may have changed since then due to reapportionment after the 2010 and 2020 census State EVs Session Bill Lower house Upper house Executive Outcome Ref Arizona 11 2016 HB 2456 Passed 40 16 Died in committee Failed 177 Arkansas 6 2007 HB 1703 Passed 52 41 Died in committee Failed 178 2009 HB 1339 Passed 56 43 Died in committee Failed 179 California 55 2005 06 AB 2948 Passed 48 30 Passed 23 14 Vetoed Failed 180 2007 08 SB 37 Passed 45 30 Passed 21 16 Vetoed Failed 42 2011 12 AB 459 Passed 52 15 Passed 23 15 Signed Law 131 Colorado 9 2006 SB 06 223 Indefinitely postponed Passed 20 15 Failed 181 2007 SB 07 046 Indefinitely postponed Passed 19 15 Failed 115 2009 HB 09 1299 Passed 34 29 Not voted Failed 182 2019 SB 19 042 Passed 34 29 Passed 19 16 Signed Law 183 Connecticut 7 2009 HB 6437 Passed 76 69 Not voted Failed 184 2018 HB 5421 Passed 77 73 Passed 21 14 Signed Law 185 Delaware 3 2009 10 HB 198 Passed 23 11 Not voted Failed 186 2011 12 HB 55 Passed 21 19 Died in committee Failed 187 2019 20 SB 22 Passed 24 17 Passed 14 7 Signed Law 188 District of Columbia 3 2009 10 B18 0769 Passed 11 0 Signed Law 189 Hawaii 4 2007 SB 1956 Passed 35 12 Passed 19 4 Vetoed Failed 119 Override not voted Overrode 20 52008 HB 3013 Passed 36 9 Died in committee Failed 190 SB 2898 Passed 39 8 Passed 20 4 Vetoed Law 125 Overrode 36 3 Overrode 20 4 OverriddenIllinois 21 2007 08 HB 858 Passed 65 50 Died in committee Failed 191 HB 1685 Passed 64 50 Passed 37 22 Signed Law 116 Louisiana 8 2012 HB 1095 Failed 29 64 Failed 192 Maine 4 2007 08 LD 1744 Indefinitely postponed Passed 18 17 Failed 193 2013 14 LD 511 Failed 60 85 Failed 17 17 Failed 194 2017 18 LD 156 Failed 66 73 Failed 14 21 Failed 195 2019 20 LD 816 Failed 66 76 Passed 19 16 Failed 122 Passed 77 69 Insisted 21 14Enactment failed 68 79 Enacted 18 16Enactment failed 69 74 Insisted on enactmentMaryland 10 2007 HB 148 Passed 85 54 Passed 29 17 Signed Law 196 SB 634 Passed 84 54 Passed 29 17 197 Massachusetts 12 2007 08 H 4952 Passed 116 37 Passed e Failed 199 Enacted Enactment not voted2009 10 H 4156 Passed 114 35 Passed 28 10 Signed Law 200 Enacted 116 34 Enacted 28 9Michigan 17 2007 08 HB 6610 Passed 65 36 Died in committee Failed 201 Minnesota 10 2013 14 HF 799 Failed 62 71 Failed 202 2019 20 SF 2227 Passed 73 58 Not voted f Failed 203 Montana 3 2007 SB 290 Failed 20 30 Failed 204 Nevada 5 2009 AB 413 Passed 27 14 Died in committee Failed 205 6 2019 AB 186 Passed 23 17 Passed 12 8 Vetoed Failed 206 New Hampshire 4 2017 18 HB 447 Failed 132 234 Failed 207 New Jersey 15 2006 07 A 4225 Passed 43 32 Passed 22 13 Signed Law 117 New Mexico 5 2009 HB 383 Passed 41 27 Died in committee Failed 208 2017 SB 42 Died in committee Passed 26 16 Failed 209 2019 HB 55 Passed 41 27 Passed 25 16 Signed Law 210 New York 31 2009 10 S02286 Not voted Passed Failed 211 29 2011 12 S04208 Not voted Passed Failed 212 2013 14 A04422 Passed 100 40 Died in committee Failed 213 S03149 Passed 102 33 Passed 57 4 Signed Law 214 North Carolina 15 2007 08 S954 Died in committee Passed 30 18 Failed 118 North Dakota 3 2007 HB 1336 Failed 31 60 Failed 215 Oklahoma 7 2013 14 SB 906 Died in committee Passed 28 18 Failed 216 Oregon 7 2009 HB 2588 Passed 39 19 Died in committee Failed 217 2013 HB 3077 Passed 38 21 Died in committee Failed 218 2015 HB 3475 Passed 37 21 Died in committee Failed 219 2017 HB 2927 Passed 34 23 Died in committee Failed 220 2019 SB 870 Passed 37 22 Passed 17 12 Signed Law 221 Rhode Island 4 2008 H 7707 Passed 36 34 Passed Vetoed Failed 222 223 S 2112 Passed 34 28 Passed Vetoed Failed 222 224 2009 H 5569 Failed 28 45 Failed 225 226 S 161 Died in committee Passed Failed 225 2011 S 164 Died in committee Passed Failed 227 2013 H 5575 Passed 41 31 Passed 32 5 Signed Law 228 229 S 346 Passed 48 21 Passed 32 4 228 230 Vermont 3 2007 08 S 270 Passed 77 35 Passed 22 6 Vetoed Failed 231 2009 10 S 34 Died in committee Passed 15 10 Failed 232 2011 12 S 31 Passed 85 44 Passed 20 10 Signed Law 233 Virginia 13 2020 HB 177 Passed 51 46 Died in committee Failed 234 Washington 11 2007 08 SB 5628 Died in committee Passed 30 18 Failed 235 2009 10 SB 5599 Passed 52 42 Passed 28 21 Signed Law 236 Referendums edit State EVs Year In favor Opposed Ref Colorado 9 2020 52 33 47 67 237 See also edit nbsp Politics portal nbsp United States portalElectoral reform in the United States Every Vote Counts Amendment Ranked choice voting in the United StatesNotes edit Each state s electoral votes are equal to the sum of its seats in both houses of Congress The allocation of House seats which is nominally proportional to population has been distorted by the fixed size of the House since 1929 and the requirement that each state have at least one representative Each state has two Senate seats regardless of population Both factors favor less populous states 18 Congress did not enact a joint resolution objecting to the passage of DC s bill during the 30 day congressional review period following passage thus allowing the District s action to proceed 128 The NPVIC was incorporated into HF 1830 the House s version of the state s omnibus budget bill which passed the House on April 18 2023 The Senate amended the bill s text to SF 1426 the Senate s companion bill which does not contain the NPVIC and passed the amended version on April 20 2023 162 The bill s text was reconciled by conference committee on May 18 2023 and includes the NPVIC The revised bill was passed by the House and Senate on May 19 2023 Nevada s AJR 6 has been passed by the 2023 Legislature Because it amends the Nevada Constitution to adopt the NPVIC it must also be passed by the 2025 Legislature and then a statewide vote expected in 2026 to be enacted It does not require approval by the Governor Although the bill passed both houses the Senate vote to send the bill to the Governor did not take place before the end of the legislative session 198 This omnibus bill was passed by the Senate without the NPVIC then amended by the House to include it and sent to conference committee However it was not further considered before the legislature adjourned References edit a b Progress in the States Archived May 2 2019 at the Wayback Machine National Popular Vote National Popular Vote National Conference of State Legislatures NCSL March 11 2015 Archived from the original on December 17 2015 Retrieved November 9 2015 a b Brody Michael February 17 2013 Circumventing the Electoral College Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under the Compact Clause Legislation and Policy Brief Washington College of Law Journals amp Law Reviews at Digital Commons American University Washington College of Law 5 1 33 35 Archived from the original on March 27 2015 Retrieved September 11 2014 McPherson v Blacker 146 U S 1 1892 a b Text of the National Popular Vote Compact Bill National Popular Vote May 5 2019 Archived from the original on May 6 2019 Retrieved May 6 2019 Who Picks the President FairVote Archived from the original on June 2 2006 Retrieved June 11 2008 a b c Drop Out of the College The New York Times March 14 2006 Archived from the original on June 15 2015 Retrieved June 11 2008 Electoral College is outdated Denver Post April 9 2007 Archived from the original on January 8 2008 Retrieved June 11 2008 a b Hill David McKee Seth C 2005 The Electoral College Mobilization and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election American Politics Research 33 5 33 700 725 doi 10 1177 1532673X04271902 S2CID 154991830 Lopez Mark Hugo Kirby Emily Sagoff Jared July 2005 The Youth Vote 2004 PDF Archived PDF from the original on June 26 2008 Retrieved June 12 2008 national 1789 present United States Elections Project ElectProject org Archived from the original on July 25 2014 Retrieved February 5 2019 Edwards III George C 2011 Why the Electoral College is Bad for America Second ed New Haven and London Yale University Press pp 1 37 61 176 77 193 94 ISBN 978 0 300 16649 1 U S Electoral College Frequently Asked Questions Archives gov Archived from the original on December 18 2008 Retrieved December 20 2017 Sean Trende October 19 2012 Did JFK Lose the Popular Vote RealClearPolitics Archived from the original on April 18 2019 Retrieved March 9 2019 States Join Forces Against Electoral College Los Angeles Times June 5 2006 Archived from the original on October 21 2007 Retrieved July 13 2008 A fix for the Electoral College The Boston Globe February 18 2008 Archived from the original on July 26 2008 Retrieved July 13 2008 How to drop out of the Electoral College There s a way to ensure top vote getter becomes president Star Tribune Minneapolis March 27 2006 Archived from the original on March 2 2017 Retrieved July 13 2008 a b c Electoral College should be maintained Honolulu Star Bulletin April 29 2007 Archived from the original on October 5 2011 Retrieved June 12 2008 a b c d du Pont Pete August 29 2006 Trash the Compact Wall Street Journal Archived from the original on October 1 2009 Retrieved February 1 2012 National Popular Vote Compact Suggested Resource List Archived from the original on July 18 2011 Rossiter 2003 p 410 Myth The Electoral College acts as a buffer against popular passions National Popular Vote January 19 2019 Archived from the original on May 18 2020 Retrieved November 7 2019 Beinart Peter November 21 2016 The Electoral College Was Meant to Stop Men Like Trump From Being President The Atlantic Archived from the original on July 7 2020 Retrieved July 7 2020 Faithless Elector State Laws Fair Vote Archived from the original on December 19 2016 Retrieved March 4 2020 Laws Binding Electors Archived from the original on January 14 2021 Retrieved March 4 2020 U S Supreme Court restricts faithless electors in presidential contests Reuters July 6 2020 Archived from the original on July 6 2020 Retrieved July 6 2020 Who Picks the President PDF FairVote Archived PDF from the original on July 23 2012 Retrieved November 9 2011 National Popular Vote FairVote Archived from the original on October 4 2012 Retrieved July 20 2010 a b c Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote PDF National Popular Vote June 1 2007 Archived PDF from the original on May 6 2019 Retrieved July 13 2008 Statewide Election Recounts 2000 2009 FairVote Archived from the original on April 3 2012 Retrieved May 3 2012 Myth There is no mechanism for conducting a national recount National Popular Vote January 20 2019 Archived from the original on April 21 2019 Retrieved April 5 2019 a b c Silver Nate November 14 2016 Will The Electoral College Doom The Democrats Again FiveThirtyEight Archived from the original on April 3 2019 Retrieved April 3 2019 Anuzis Saul May 26 2006 Anuzis Conservatives need the popular vote Washington Times Archived from the original on May 29 2011 Retrieved June 3 2011 California should join the popular vote parade Los Angeles Times July 16 2011 Archived from the original on May 18 2020 Retrieved June 6 2019 Hertzberg Hendrik June 13 2011 Misguided objectivity on n p v New Yorker Archived from the original on June 17 2011 Retrieved June 21 2011 David Broder on PBS Online News Hour s Campaign Countdown November 6 2000 Archived from the original on January 12 2008 Retrieved June 12 2008 Timothy Noah December 13 2000 Faithless Elector Watch Gimme Equal Protection Slate com Archived from the original on March 8 2008 Retrieved June 12 2008 Longley Lawrence D Peirce Neal 1999 Electoral College Primer 2000 Yale University Press Archived from the original on June 6 2011 Levinson Sanford 2006 Our Undemocratic Constitution Oxford University Press Archived from the original on March 28 2008 Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 July 5 Archived from the original on May 19 2020 Retrieved February 9 2020 Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 July 9 Archived from the original on May 17 2020 Retrieved February 9 2020 a b c An act to add Chapter 1 5 commencing with Section 6920 to Part 2 of Division 6 of the Elections Code relating to presidential elections California Office of Legislative Counsel Archived from the original on March 30 2019 Retrieved March 15 2019 NewsWatch Honolulu Star Bulletin April 24 2007 Archived from the original on October 5 2011 Retrieved July 13 2008 What s Wrong With the Popular Vote Hawaii Reporter April 11 2007 Archived from the original on January 10 2008 Retrieved July 13 2008 a b c 9 7 3 MYTH A national popular vote will result in a proliferation of candidates Presidents being elected with as little as 15 of the vote and a breakdown of the two party system NationalPopularVote com January 19 2019 Archived from the original on July 23 2020 Retrieved July 23 2020 Morningstar Bernard L September 7 2019 Abolishing Electoral College is a bad idea Frederick News Post Archived from the original on August 4 2020 Retrieved July 23 2020 Map of state voting law differences USA Facts August 22 2022 Archived from the original on December 25 2022 Retrieved December 26 2022 Myths about Logistical Nightmares Arising from Differences in State Laws NationalPopularVote com National Popular Vote Inc January 19 2019 Retrieved June 12 2023 Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 24 Virginia v Tennessee 148 U S 503 517 518 1893 New Hampshire v Maine 426 U S 363 469 1976 United States Steel Corp v Multistate Tax Comm n 434 U S 452 468 1978 Cuyler v Adams 449 U S 433 440 1981 Northeast Bancorp Inc v Governors FRS 472 U S 159 175 176 1985 Florida v Georgia 58 U S 478 494 1855 Texas v New Mexico and Colorado No 141 orig 585 U S slip op at 4 2018 Florida v Georgia 58 U S 478 494 1855 Texas v New Mexico and Colorado No 141 orig 585 U S slip op at 4 2018 Hendricks Jennifer S July 1 2008 Popular Election of the President Using or Abusing the Electoral College Election Law Journal 7 3 218 236 doi 10 1089 elj 2008 7306 SSRN 1030385 Turflinger Bradley T 2011 Fifty Republics and the National Popular Vote How the Guarantee Clause Should Protect States Striving for Equal Protection in Presidential Elections Valparaiso University Law Review Valco Scholar 45 3 795 798 833 843 Archived from the original on October 6 2014 Retrieved September 25 2012 Schleifer Adam 2007 Interstate Agreement for Electoral Reform Akron Law Review 40 4 717 749 Archived from the original on May 18 2020 Retrieved April 17 2019 Muller Derek T November 2007 The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Election Law Journal Mary Ann Liebert Inc 6 4 372 393 doi 10 1089 elj 2007 6403 S2CID 53380514 Muller Derek T 2008 More Thoughts on the Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote A Response to Professor Hendricks Election Law Journal Mary Ann Liebert Inc 7 3 227 233 doi 10 1089 elj 2008 7307 SSRN 2033853 Drake Ian J September 20 2013 Federal Roadblocks The Constitution and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Publius The Journal of Federalism Oxford University Press 44 4 690 691 doi 10 1093 publius pjt037 Drake Ian J September 20 2013 Federal Roadblocks The Constitution and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Publius The Journal of Federalism Oxford University Press 44 4 691 693 doi 10 1093 publius pjt037 a b Burroughs v United States 290 U S 534 544 545 1934 Gamboa 2001 pp 7 9 Neale amp Nolan 2019 pp 25 26 Drake Ian J September 20 2013 Federal Roadblocks The Constitution and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Publius The Journal of Federalism Oxford University Press 44 4 697 698 doi 10 1093 publius pjt037 9 16 Myths about Interstate Compacts and Congressional Consent 9 16 5 MYTH National Popular Vote January 20 2019 Archived from the original on May 6 2019 Retrieved May 5 2019 Amar Vikram 2011 Response The Case for Reforming Presidential Elections by Subconstitutional Means The Electoral College the National Popular Vote Compact and Congressional Power The Georgetown Law Journal Georgetown University Law Center 100 1 237 259 SSRN 1936374 Archived from the original on May 18 2020 Retrieved April 25 2019 Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 30 Williams v Rhodes 393 U S 23 1968 Oregon v Mitchell 400 U S 112 1970 Gamboa 2001 pp 9 10 Rossiter 2003 pp 561 564 566 568 Wilson Jennings 2006 Bloc Voting in the Electoral College How the Ignored States Can Become Relevant and Implement Popular Election Along the Way Election Law Journal Mary Ann Liebert 5 4 384 409 doi 10 1089 elj 2006 5 384 Archived from the original on November 7 2021 Retrieved December 15 2020 Natelson Robert February 4 2019 Why the National Popular Vote scheme is unconstitutional Independence Institute Archived from the original on April 12 2019 Retrieved April 12 2019 Millhiser Ian July 6 2020 The Supreme Court decides not to make the Electoral College even worse Vox Vox Media Archived from the original on July 6 2020 Retrieved July 7 2020 Liptak Adam July 7 2020 States May Curb Faithless Electors Supreme Court Rules The New York Times p A1 Archived from the original on July 11 2020 Retrieved July 11 2020 Litt David July 7 2020 The Supreme Court Just Pointed Out the Absurdity of the Electoral College It s Up to Us to End It time com Time Retrieved July 15 2020 Astor Maggie Stevens Matt July 7 2020 Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court The New York Times Archived from the original on August 10 2020 Retrieved July 15 2020 Fadem Barry July 14 2020 Supreme Court s faithless electors decision validates case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Brookings Institution Archived from the original on July 17 2020 Retrieved August 4 2020 Muller Derek July 7 2020 Avoiding the temptation to overread Chiafalo v Washington Excess of Democracy Retrieved July 15 2020 Neale amp Nolan 2019 pp 28 29 Americans Have Historically Favored Changing Way Presidents are Elected Gallup November 10 2000 Archived from the original on January 1 2008 Retrieved June 11 2008 Washington Post Kaiser Family Foundation Harvard University Survey of Political Independents PDF The Washington Post Archived PDF from the original on March 6 2008 Retrieved June 11 2008 Swift Art December 2 2016 Americans Support for Electoral College Rises Sharply Gallup Archived from the original on April 1 2019 Retrieved April 5 2019 5 The Electoral College Congress and representation Pew Research Center April 26 2018 Archived from the original on April 6 2019 Retrieved April 27 2019 61 of Americans Support Abolishing Electoral College Gallup September 24 2020 Archived from the original on September 29 2020 Retrieved September 28 2020 Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College Pew Research Center August 5 2022 Archived from the original on August 6 2022 Retrieved August 16 2022 Keyssar 2020 pp 14 35 Neale amp Nolan 2019 pp 1 2 a b c Keyssar 2020 p 5 a b Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 1 a b c d e f g h Laurent Thibault Le Breton Michel Lepelley Dominique de Mouzon Olivier April 2019 Exploring the Effects on the Electoral College of National and Regional Popular Vote Interstate Compact An Electoral Engineering Perspective Public Choice 179 n 1 51 95 doi 10 1007 s11127 018 0576 7 ISSN 0048 5829 S2CID 158874172 Archived from the original on November 7 2021 Retrieved November 23 2020 PDF Archived January 9 2021 at the Wayback Machine a b Keyssar 2020 p 7 Keyssar 2020 p 6 Keyssar 2020 pp 7 36 68 amp 101 119 Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 1 Keyssar 2020 p 208 Keyssar 2020 pp 120 176 Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 4 Warren Weaver Jr March 23 1977 Carter Proposes End of Electoral College in Presidential Votes New York Times Retrieved July 15 2022 Keyssar 2020 pp 178 207 Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 4 Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 5 Neale amp Nolan 2019 pp 5 7 a b c d e f Keyssar 2020 p 195 Bennett Robert W Spring 2001 Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment PDF The Green Bag 4 3 SSRN 261057 Archived PDF from the original on August 14 2019 Retrieved January 17 2019 a b c d e f g h i Keyssar 2020 p 196 Amar Akhil Reed Amar Vikram David December 28 2001 How to Achieve Direct National Election of the President Without Amending the Constitution Part Three Of A Three part Series On The 2000 Election And The Electoral College Findlaw Archived from the original on December 3 2020 Retrieved November 25 2020 Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 6 Keyssar 2020 p 195 Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 8 a b c d Neale amp Nolan 2019 p 8 Keyssar 2020 p 198 Progress in Arkansas National Popular Vote Inc 2009 Archived from the original on February 13 2016 Retrieved June 6 2008 a b Summarized History for Bill Number SB07 046 Colorado Legislature 2007 Archived from the original on May 17 2011 Retrieved July 13 2008 a b c Bill Status of HB1685 Illinois General Assembly Archived from the original on August 1 2010 Retrieved August 29 2022 a b Bill Search Bill A4225 from Session 2006 07 New Jersey Legislature Archived from the original on June 4 2008 Retrieved July 13 2008 a b Senate Bill 954 North Carolina 2008 Archived from the original on December 24 2008 Retrieved July 13 2008 a b Hawaii SB 1956 2007 Archived from the original on June 3 2008 Retrieved June 6 2008 a b Maryland sidesteps electoral college NBC News April 11 2007 Archived from the original on April 17 2014 Retrieved July 13 2008 Governor Sisolak Statement on Assembly Bill 186 Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak Archived from the original on May 30 2019 Retrieved May 30 2019 a b Actions for LD 816 Maine Legislature Archived from the original on February 20 2019 Retrieved August 29 2022 a b Elections Legislation Database National Conference of State Legislatures Retrieved February 5 2023 New Jersey Rejects Electoral College CBS News CBS January 13 2008 Archived from the original on May 25 2008 Retrieved July 13 2008 a b Hawaii SB 2898 2008 Hawaii State Legislature Archived from the original on October 22 2020 Retrieved January 5 2019 Progress in Washington National Popular Vote Inc February 2016 Archived from the original on January 28 2019 Retrieved January 28 2019 Progress in Massachusetts National Popular Vote Inc February 2016 Archived from the original on January 28 2019 Retrieved January 28 2019 How a Bill Becomes a Law Council of the District of Columbia dccouncil gov Council of the District of Columbia Retrieved August 31 2023 Progress in District of Columbia National Popular Vote Inc February 2016 Archived from the original on January 28 2019 Retrieved January 28 2019 Progress in Vermont National Popular Vote Inc February 2016 a b An act to add Chapter 1 5 commencing with Section 6920 to Part 2 of Division 6 of the Elections Code relating to presidential elections California Office of Legislative Counsel Archived from the original on March 24 2019 Retrieved March 15 2019 Progress in Rhode Island National Popular Vote Inc February 2016 Archived from the original on January 28 2019 Retrieved January 28 2019 Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation Adding New York State to the National Popular Vote Compact governor ny gov September 29 2014 Archived from the original on November 3 2014 Retrieved April 15 2014 The Office of Governor Dannel P Malloy Bill Notifications PDF Archived PDF from the original on May 25 2018 Retrieved May 24 2018 Gov Polis Signs Bills Into Law Colorado Governor Polis Official Site Archived from the original on March 18 2019 Retrieved March 16 2019 Chase Randall March 28 2019 Delaware governor signs national popular vote bill Washington Post Archived from the original on March 28 2019 Retrieved March 28 2019 McKay Dan April 3 2019 Expungement Electoral College bills signed by governor Albuquerque Journal Archived from the original on April 3 2019 Retrieved April 3 2019 Governor signs bill to change the way Oregon helps choose the president OregonLive June 12 2019 Archived from the original on June 12 2019 Retrieved June 12 2019 Gov Walz Democrats and advocates celebrate 72 billion budget Star Tribune May 24 2023 Retrieved May 24 2023 Bureau of Corporations Elections amp Commissions Maine gov Archived from the original on January 8 2018 Retrieved December 21 2017 Maine National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Initiative 2018 Ballotpedia Archived from the original on November 8 2018 Retrieved December 21 2017 2018 Initiatives Referendums amp Recalls Archived from the original on April 28 2018 Retrieved December 21 2017 Arizona National Popular Vote Interstate Agreement Initiative 2018 Ballotpedia Archived from the original on May 9 2017 Retrieved December 21 2017 IT Missouri Secretary of State 2018 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri sos mo gov Archived from the original on July 10 2017 Retrieved December 21 2017 Missouri National Popular Vote Interstate Agreement Initiative 2018 Ballotpedia Archived from the original on May 9 2017 Retrieved December 21 2017 Colorado Election Proposition 113 Results Secretary of State of Colorado Archived from the original on March 22 2021 Retrieved November 11 2020 Silver Nate April 17 2014 Why a Plan to Circumvent the Electoral College Is Probably Doomed FiveThirtyEight ESPN Archived from the original on October 30 2014 Retrieved July 17 2014 New York National Popular Vote January 19 2016 Archived from the original on August 8 2018 Retrieved August 7 2018 National Popular Vote National Popular Vote December 17 2015 Archived from the original on August 8 2018 Retrieved August 7 2018 Rakich Nathaniel March 5 2019 The Movement To Skip The Electoral College Is About To Pass A Major Milestone FiveThirtyEight com Archived from the original on March 8 2019 Retrieved March 18 2019 North Dakota Bill Versions SB 2271 North Dakota State Government 2021 Archived from the original on February 26 2021 Retrieved March 19 2021 a b North Dakota Bill Actions SB 2271 North Dakota State Government 2021 Archived from the original on April 9 2021 Retrieved March 19 2021 Testimony for Bill 2271 Legislative Assembly State of North Dakota North Dakota State Government 2021 Archived from the original on February 26 2021 Retrieved March 19 2021 Muder Doug March 1 2021 North Dakota Is About to Kill the National Popular Vote Compact The Weekly Sift Archived from the original on March 3 2021 Retrieved March 19 2021 SB 61 Alaska Legislature Retrieved May 3 2023 SB 1485 Arizona Legislature Retrieved March 6 2023 HB 53 Florida House of Representatives Retrieved March 18 2023 SB 860 Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote The Florida Senate Retrieved February 28 2023 131st Maine Legislature First Special Session Maine Legislature Retrieved May 27 2023 House Bill 4156 2023 Michigan Legislature Retrieved March 7 2023 Senate Bill 0126 2023 Michigan Legislature Retrieved March 2 2023 Journal of the Senate April 19 2023 PDF Minnesota Legislature Retrieved April 21 2023 HF 1830 Minnesota Legislature Retrieved April 18 2023 SF 538 Minnesota Legislature Retrieved February 8 2023 SF 1362 Minnesota Legislature Retrieved April 26 2023 House Bill 491 Mississippi Legislature Retrieved February 28 2023 HB 829 Missouri Legislature Retrieved May 14 2023 HB 997 Missouri Legislature Retrieved May 14 2023 AJR6 NELIS Nevada State Legislature Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau Retrieved April 14 2023 House Bill 191 2023 2024 Session North Carolina Legislature Retrieved March 2 2023 H 3240 General Bill By Cobb Hunter www scstatehouse gov Retrieved February 27 2023 H 3807 General Bill By Hart www scstatehouse gov Retrieved February 27 2023 HB 237 Texas Legislature Retrieved February 8 2023 SB 95 Texas Legislature Retrieved February 16 2023 AB156 Wisconsin Legislature SB 144 Wisconsin Legislature Retrieved April 4 2023 House Bill 2456 Arizona State Legislature 2016 Archived from the original on February 10 2021 Retrieved August 29 2022 HB1703 An Act to Adopt the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote Arkansas General Assembly Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved August 29 2022 HB1339 An Act to Adopt the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote Arkansas General Assembly Archived from the original on March 11 2012 Retrieved August 29 2022 An act to add Chapter 1 5 commencing with Section 6920 to Part 2 of Division 6 of the Elections Code relating to presidential elections California Office of Legislative Counsel Archived from the original on March 30 2019 Retrieved March 15 2019 Summarized History for Bill Number SB06 223 Colorado General Assembly Archived from the original on August 8 2007 Retrieved August 29 2022 Summarized History for Bill Number HB09 1299 Colorado General Assembly Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved August 29 2022 Senate Bill 19 042 National Popular Vote Colorado General Assembly Archived from the original on February 2 2019 Retrieved February 1 2019 Raised H B No 6437 Connecticut General Assembly Archived from the original on April 25 2009 Retrieved August 29 2022 Raised H B No 5421 Connecticut General Assembly Archived from the original on March 14 2018 Retrieved August 29 2022 House Bill 198 Delaware General Assembly Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved August 29 2022 House Bill 55 Delaware General Assembly Archived from the original on December 29 2017 Retrieved August 29 2022 Senate Bill 22 Delaware General Assembly Archived from the original on February 28 2019 Retrieved August 29 2022 B18 0769 National Popular Vote Interstate Agreement Act of 2010 Council of the District of Columbia Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved August 29 2022 HB3013 HD1 Hawaii State Legislature Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved November 10 2016 Bill Status of HB0858 Illinois General Assembly Archived from the original on October 6 2008 Retrieved August 29 2022 HB1095 Louisiana State Legislature Archived from the original on December 26 2016 Retrieved August 29 2022 Actions for LD 1744 Maine Legislature Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved August 29 2022 Actions for LD 511 Maine Legislature Archived from the original on April 8 2014 Retrieved August 29 2022 Summary of LD 156 Maine Legislature Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved January 17 2019 House Bill 148 Maryland General Assembly 2007 Archived from the original on June 8 2019 Retrieved February 14 2018 Senate Bill 654 Maryland General Assembly 2007 Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved February 14 2018 Viser Matt August 1 2008 Legislature agrees to back Pike finances The Boston Globe Archived from the original on June 29 2011 Retrieved August 11 2008 House No 4952 General Court of Massachusetts 2008 Archived from the original on October 12 2012 Bill H 4156 General Court of Massachusetts 2010 Archived from the original on September 24 2020 Retrieved February 14 2018 House Bill 6610 2008 Michigan Legislature 2008 Archived from the original on August 11 2011 Retrieved December 11 2008 HF0799 Status in House for Legislative Session 88 2013 Archived from the original on November 7 2021 Retrieved April 11 2013 SF 2227 Minnesota Legislature Archived from the original on May 1 2019 Retrieved May 1 2019 Detailed Bill Information SB290 Montana Legislature 2007 Archived from the original on November 16 2018 Retrieved December 25 2016 AB413 Nevada Legislature Archived from the original on April 29 2009 Retrieved April 22 2009 Assembly Bill 186 Nevada Legislature Archived from the original on February 20 2019 Retrieved February 19 2019 HB447 New Hampshire General Court Archived from the original on November 23 2018 Retrieved January 17 2019 HB 383 New Mexico Legislature 2009 Archived from the original on March 30 2019 Retrieved February 15 2018 Legislation New Mexico Legislature NMLegis gov Archived from the original on March 30 2019 Retrieved January 6 2018 House Bill 55 New Mexico Legislature Archived from the original on January 4 2019 Retrieved January 3 2019 S02286 New York State Assembly 2009 Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved February 15 2018 S4208 Summary New York State Assembly 2011 Archived from the original on October 8 2012 Retrieved February 15 2018 A04422 Summary New York State Assembly 2013 Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved February 15 2018 S03149 Summary New York State Assembly 2014 Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved February 15 2018 Measure Actions North Dakota State Government 2007 Archived from the original on November 14 2016 Retrieved December 25 2016 SB906 Status in Oklahoma Senate Oklahoma Senate 2014 Archived from the original on March 6 2014 Retrieved March 17 2014 Oregon Legislative Information System olis leg state or us Archived from the original on August 16 2016 Retrieved July 4 2016 HB 3077 Oregon State Legislature 2013 Archived from the original on January 16 2016 Retrieved April 10 2013 House Bill 3475 Oregon State Legislature 2015 Archived from the original on June 22 2015 Retrieved May 20 2015 HB 2927 Archived February 16 2017 at the Wayback Machine Oregon State Legislature Senate Bill 870 Oregon State Legislature Archived from the original on February 27 2019 Retrieved February 26 2019 a b Legislative Status Report see 7707 2112 Rhode Island Legislature 2008 Archived from the original on July 3 2013 Retrieved July 13 2008 08H 7707 Archived February 22 2018 at the Wayback Machine Rhode Island General Assembly 08S 2112 Archived February 22 2018 at the Wayback Machine Rhode Island General Assembly a b Legislative status report Rhode Island Legislature 2009 Archived from the original on July 3 2013 Retrieved May 25 2009 09H 5569 Archived February 22 2018 at the Wayback Machine Rhode Island General Assembly Legislative status report look for 164 in 2011 Rhode Island Legislature 2011 Archived from the original on July 3 2013 Retrieved January 23 2012 a b Legislative Status Report search for bills 5575 346 Rhode Island General Assembly Archived from the original on July 3 2013 Retrieved August 29 2022 2013 H 5575 Archived February 22 2018 at the Wayback Machine Rhode Island General Assembly 2013 S 346 Sub A Archived February 22 2018 at the Wayback Machine Rhode Island General Assembly The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System S 270 Vermont General Assembly Archived from the original on June 24 2016 Retrieved February 19 2018 S 34 Vermont General Assembly Archived from the original on February 22 2018 Retrieved February 19 2018 S 31 Vermont Legislature Archived from the original on March 30 2019 Retrieved February 19 2018 HB 177 Virginia s Legislative Information System Archived from the original on March 11 2020 Retrieved December 28 2019 SB5628 Washington Legislature 2008 Archived from the original on April 19 2008 Retrieved July 13 2008 SB5599 2009 Washington State Legislature 2009 Archived from the original on May 6 2009 Retrieved January 23 2009 Colorado Proposition 113 National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Referendum 2020 Ballotpedia Archived from the original on October 8 2021 Retrieved October 8 2021 Bundled references 49 50 51 52 53 54 Works cited editWhitaker L Paige May 17 2023 Campaign Finance Law An Analysis of Key Issues Recent Developments and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation Report Congressional Research Service Retrieved June 29 2023 Report on the Electoral Count Act of 1887 Proposals for Reform PDF Report United States House Committee on House Administration 2022 Retrieved May 18 2023 Keyssar Alexander 2020 Why do we still have the electoral college Harvard University Press ISBN 9780674974142 OCLC 1153869791 Neale Thomas H October 22 2020 The Electoral College A 2020 Presidential Election Timeline Report Congressional Research Service Retrieved July 3 2023 Whitaker L Paige September 8 2020 Political Campaign Contributions and Congress A Legal Primer Report Congressional Research Service Retrieved June 29 2023 Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U S Election Volume 5 Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities PDF Report United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2020 Retrieved June 23 2023 Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election Volume II of II PDF Report United States Department of Justice June 2020b Retrieved July 1 2023 Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election Volume I of II PDF Report United States Department of Justice June 2020a Retrieved July 1 2023 Neale Thomas H Nolan Andrew October 28 2019 The National Popular Vote NPV Initiative Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact Report Congressional Research Service Retrieved November 10 2019 Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U S Election Volume 2 Russia s Use of Social Media with Additional Views PDF Report United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence October 2019b Retrieved June 23 2023 Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U S Election Volume 1 Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views PDF Report United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence July 2019a Retrieved June 21 2023 Rossiter Clinton ed 2003 The Federalist Papers Signet Classics ISBN 9780451528810 Gamboa Anthony H March 13 2001 Elections The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Administration PDF Report General Accounting Office Retrieved June 8 2023 External links editElection Law Journal Symposium on National Popular Vote National Popular Vote Text of the National Popular Vote Compact Bill Every Vote Equal A State Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote read or download the book for free FairVote Common Cause Electoral College legislation at the National Conference of State Legislatures Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title National Popular Vote Interstate Compact amp oldid 1181812901, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.