Truth behind destroying the Electoral College
I give Damon Agnos credit for being honest in his blog at the Seattle Weekly. He is the first supporter of the Koza scheme (a.k.a. national popular vote) to admit truthfully the motive behind destroying the Electoral College. Agnos writes, “a national popular vote would disempower the staunchly Republican farm states in the middle of the country.” At least he doesn’t employ the “every vote should count” myth.
He also reports on two amendments that I suggest Colorado state senators opposed to Andy Kerr’s disastrous legislation to kill the Electoral College introduce next week before third reading. The first amendment would require every state to have the same ballot. As it stands now, states decide the process by which a candidate may petition to be on a ballot. That means that not every presidential candidate is on the ballot in every state. It’s difficult to have a national popular vote if we don’t have a national popular ballot.
The second amendment is more intriguing and possibly more controversial in Colorado. Colorado could require that the only way it would join the Koza compact is if no states allowed incarcerated felons to vote. For instance, Vermont, which passed Koza in both houses in 2008 before the Governor vetoed it, has no restrictions on convicted felons voting; they are allowed to vote from jail. In Colorado, convicted felons may vote only after they have completed their parole. Procon.org is a great source for differences between states on the voting rights of convicted felons. Bottom line, unless all states adopt the same requirements for convicted felons voting (and I’d suggest standardized voter identification requirements too), then Colorado cannot enter into the Koza compact.
These amendments might make next week’s debate interesting.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:28 am
the U.S. Constitution does not require that the election laws of all 50 states are identical in virtually every respect. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons “within its jurisdiction.” The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a “person”in another state who is not “within its [the first state's] jurisdiction.” State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.
The National Popular Vote bill does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
It is important to note that neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor”provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination”of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive”each other state’s “final determination”of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
You missed the point.