June 8, 2006
AB 2948—“Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote”
Hon.
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator ,
AB 2948 would enact the proposed interstate compact entitled the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote” in California. The compact is a politically practical way to implement nationwide popular election of the President—a goal supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans (between 65% and 81% in Gallup polls taken since 1944 and over70% of the people in recent polls). This bill was approved 49–31 in the Assembly.
The New York Times endorsed National Popular Vote’s plan by calling it an “innovative new proposal” and “an ingenious solution” and urging that “Legislatures across the country should get behind it” (March 14). The Chicago Sun Times called the plan “thinking outside the box” and said “It's time to make the change with this innovative plan” (March 1). The Sacramento Bee endorsed the bill saying “The governor and senators can get this process rolling in other states by acting this session” (June 3). The Denver Post said that it is “time to rethink presidential elections” (April 19). The Los Angeles Times endorsed the plan on June 5.
The Colorado State Senate approved National Popular Vote’s proposed interstate compact (SB 223) on third reading on April 17. Among the Senators voting for the bill were original Senate sponsors Ken Gordon (D), John Evans (R), and Lew Entz (R).
The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former congressmen John Buchanan (R–Alabama and the first Republican elected to represent Birmingham), John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), and Tom Campbell (R–California) and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–MN), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).
In New York, five Republican Assembly members introduced National Popular Vote’s bill (A11563). The sponsors include Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. (Republican, Independence, Working Families–Sag Harbor); Assemblyman Jim Bacalles (Republican, Conservative–Corning); Assemblyman Joe Errigo (Republican, Conservative–Conesus); Assemblyman Andrew Raia (Republican, Conservative, Independence, working Families–East Northport); Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward (Republican, Independence, Conservative–Willsboro).
In the Illinois Senate, the bill (SB 2724) is sponsored by Senators Jacqueline Collins (D), Kirk W. Dillard (R and Du Page County Republican Party Chair), James T. Meeks (I). The Senate bill now has seven sponsors. In the Illinois House, the bill is sponsored (HB 5777) by Representatives Robert S. Molaro (D) and Jim Durkin (R). The House bill now has 29 sponsors. An informational hearing is expected in the Illinois Senate in July.
In Missouri, the bill (HB 2090) is sponsored by Representative Robert Johnson (R) and Representative Jeff Roorda (D). An informational hearing was held on April 25.
In Louisiana, the National Popular Vote bill (HB 927) was approved by the House and Governmental Affairs Committee on May 10.
Legislative sponsors have also been announced in Vermont and Arizona, and we hope to file bills in the legislatures of all 50 states in time for the 2007 legislative sessions.
ShortcomingS of the Current System
The major shortcoming of the current system is that voters in two thirds of the states are effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections because they do not live in closely divided “battleground” states. Presidential candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their advertising money and campaign visits in just five states, and over 99% of their advertising in just 16 states. The spectator states in presidential elections include six of the nation’s 10 most populous states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and North Carolina), 12 of the 13 least populous states (all but New Hampshire); and a majority of the medium-sized states. As the Los Angeles Times said in its June 5 editorial endorsing the National Popular Vote plan:
“The Electoral College doesn't skew just election results; it skews elections. Candidates know they don't have to campaign in states that either clearly favor them or clearly don't; they have to focus only on swing states. In the 2004 campaign, Bush and Kerry spent a great deal of time brushing up on agricultural policy and other issues of vital concern in Iowa, while ignoring matters important to people in states such as California, Texas and New York.”
Thus, issues of concern to California, such as immigration, Pacific Rim trade, high-tech, and bio-tech are not addressed in present-day presidential campaigns.
A second shortcoming of the current system is a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected Kerry, despite President Bush’s 3,500,000-vote nationwide lead. A shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections. The second-place candidate was elected in 2000, 1888, 1876, and 1824.
A third shortcoming is that the current system regularly manufactures artificial crises even when the nationwide popular vote is not particularly close. Even though President Bush was 3.5 million votes ahead of Kerry in 2004 on election night, the nation had to wait until Wednesday to see if Kerry would dispute Ohio’s all-important 20 electoral votes. Similarly, the disputed 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created by one candidate’s 537-vote lead in Florida in an election in which the other candidate had a 537,179-vote lead nationwide (1,000 times greater). In the nation’s most controversial presidential election, Tilden’s lead in 1876 of 3.1% was greater than, for example, Bush’s 2.8%-lead in 2004; however, very small margins in five states (889, 922, 1,050, 1,075, and 2,798) created a constitutional crisis. With is a single large pool of 122,000,000 votes, there are fewer opportunities for close outcomes, recounts, and disputes than when there are 51 separate smaller pools.
All three shortcomings have a single cause—the states’ use of the winner-take-all rule that awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate winning the state. AB 2948 will solve these problems.
The States’ Exclusive Power to Award Their Electoral Votes
The winner-take-all rule is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. It is not a federal law. It was not the choice of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, when the Founding Fathers returned to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election in 1789, only three states choose to use the winner-take-all rule. A federal constitutional amendment is not required to modify the winner-take-all rule in California or any other state because use of the winner-take-all rule is strictly a matter of state law. Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have the power to choose the manner of awarding their electoral votes. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 provides: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “supreme” and “plenary” and “exclusive.” In the controlling case (McPherson v. Blacker in 1892), the Court wrote: “the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States” (emphasis added). In Bush v. Gore in 2000, the Court called Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 “the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker … that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary” (emphasis added). The fact that Maine and Nebraska today use a congressional-district system is a reminder that the manner of awarding electoral votes is entirely a matter of state law. Other reminders include the recent AB 2 bill (Benoit and Harman) proposing that California divide its electoral votes by congressional district and AB 45 (Maze) proposing that California proportionally divide its electoral votes. It is noteworthy that the states’ “exclusive” and “plenary” power over the manner of awarding their electoral votes contrasts with the more limited power of the states over the manner of conducting congressional elections, where “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations” (Article II, Section 4, Clause 1).
How the Proposed Interstate Compact Would Work
The United States can have nationwide popular election of the President by reforming the Electoral College so that it reflects the voters’ nationwide choice. At the present time, the Electoral College reflects the voters’ state-by-state choices for President in 48 states, while reflecting the voters’ district-by-district choices in Maine and Nebraska.
Under the National Popular Vote plan, the popular vote counts from all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be added together to obtain a national grand total for each presidential candidate. Then, state elections officials in all states participating in the plan would award all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the largest number of popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As the Assembly Appropriations Committee found, this plan entails no significant fiscal cost or administrative burden to the state because the voting by the people in the presidential election inside the state would be conducted in the same manner as it now is. Under the proposal, no state would act alone in offering to award its electoral votes to the nationwide winner. Instead, the National Popular Vote plan would take effect only when the plan has been enacted by states collectively possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is 270 of the 538 electoral votes. This threshold guarantees that the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide would win enough electoral votes in the Electoral College to become President.
Under existing California law, the state’s electoral votes are cast by a group of 55 presidential electors who were nominated by the political party whose presidential candidate carried California. People nominated for this position are almost invariably long-time party officials or activists. Under the proposed compact, the 270 or more electoral votes possessed by the states belonging to the compact would be cast by a group of 270+ presidential electors nominated by the political party whose candidate won nationwide. That is, no presidential elector would be asked to vote contrary to his or her political inclinations or conscience. Instead, the electors associated with the winning political party would simply vote for their own party’s presidential candidate.
The National Popular Vote plan is an interstate compact—a type of state law authorized by the U.S. Constitution that enables states to enter into a legally enforceable contractual obligation to undertake agreed joint actions. There are hundreds of interstate compacts, and each state in the United States belongs to several dozen compacts. The Colorado River Compact is an example of the many compacts that California has joined by means of legislation.. Interstate compacts are generally subject to congressional consent.
To prevent partisan mischief between the November voting by the people and the mid-December meeting of the Electoral College, the compact contains a six-month blackout period if any state ever wishes to withdraw from the compact. The blackout period starts on July 20 of each presidential election year and runs through the January 20 inauguration. Interstate compacts are contracts. It is settled compact law that withdrawal restrictions—very common in interstate compacts—are enforceable because the U.S. Constitution bars a state from impairing any obligation of contract.
Nationwide Popular Election HELPS Small States
Nationwide popular election of the President would be advantageous to the nation’s least populous states. Twelve of 13 smallest states are ignored in presidential elections because they are not politically competitive (six regularly going Republican, with Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly going Democratic). These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states together have 40 electoral votes. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. However, Ohio is the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are ignored. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states (with their currently irrelevant 40 electoral votes) as important as an Ohio voter. In fact, the vote of every person in the United States would become equally important under the proposed compact.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been recognized for some time. In 1968, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because the decision as to the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in 1968) and New York voters suffer the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. In a 1979 Senate speech, Senator Henry Bellmon (R–Oklahoma) described how his views on the Electoral College had changed while he had served as Governor, Senator, national campaign director for Richard Nixon, and a member of the American Bar Association’s commission studying electoral reform.
“While the consideration of the electoral college began—and I am a little embarrassed to admit this—I was convinced, as are many residents of smaller States, that the present system is a considerable advantage to less populous States such as Oklahoma …[A]s the deliberations of the American Bar Association Commission proceeded and as more facts became known, I came to the realization that the present electoral system does not give an advantage to the voters from the less populous States. Rather, it works to the disadvantage of small State voters who are largely ignored in the general election for President.
A nationwide popular vote is the only way to make every vote equal throughout the United States and to thereby increase the influence of least populous states in presidential elections. The current winner-take-all rule negates the influence of every non-competitive state (small, medium, or large).