Jump to content

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 150.250.101.65 (talk) at 02:39, 24 September 2010 (Correct DC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Fix bunching

Status of NPVIC legislation in current legislative session: Passed into law:
■ passed into law
Pending:
■ passed in both houses
■ passed in one house
■ introduced
Did not pass:
■ passed in both houses
■ passed in one house
■ introduced
Not introduced:
■ not introduced State shapes have been adjusted in the second map so that their sizes represent Electoral College strength.

Template:Fix bunching Template:Fix bunching

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among U.S. states that would effectively replace the current electoral college system of presidential elections with a direct, nationwide vote of the people. As of August 2010, this interstate compact has been joined by Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington; their 73 electoral votes amount to more than 27% of the 270 needed for the compact to take effect. Bills to join the compact have been introduced in the other states and the District of Columbia. Bills to repeal the compact have been introduced in Maryland and New Jersey.

The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades. Today, 48 states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes statewide.

States joining the compact will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner until the compact has been joined by enough states to represent a controlling majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 electoral votes). After that point, all of the electoral votes of the member states would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. With the national popular vote winner sure to have a decisive majority in the Electoral College, he or she would automatically win the Electoral College and therefore the presidency.

Details of the compact law

States join the compact by adopting it as a state law. The compact law[1] requires that:

  • The member state shall hold presidential elections by statewide popular vote.
  • After the election, the state's chief election official (usually the state Secretary of State) shall certify the number of popular votes cast in the state for each candidate and report those results to the other states by a specific deadline.
  • The chief election official shall then determine "national popular vote totals" for each candidate by adding up the vote totals reported by every state and the District of Columbia. (Each state is required to make official reports of vote totals to the federal government in the form of Certificates of Ascertainment.)[2]
  • The state's electoral votes shall be awarded to the candidate with the greatest "national popular vote total."

The compact member states would give their electoral votes to the candidate with the greatest number of popular votes (a plurality), even if no candidate has a majority. In the extremely unlikely event of an exact tie in the national popular vote totals, each member state would award its electoral votes to the statewide winner, as is currently done in 48 states (Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes based on results at the congressional district level).

The compact specifies that it shall take effect only if it is law in states controlling a majority of electoral votes on July 20 of a presidential election year. States wishing to join or withdraw from the compact after that date would not be able to do so until after the election. The compact would terminate in the event that the Electoral College is abolished.

History of the compact

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College by constitutional amendment has existed for some time (see Every Vote Counts Amendment). Though voting rights and electoral rules have been modified by constitutional amendment in the past, such amendments are difficult to pass because they require supermajorities in the House and Senate together with the support of three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Academic plan

In 2001 Northwestern University law professor Robert Bennett suggested a plan in an academic publication to implement a National Popular Vote through a mechanism that would embrace state legislatures’ power to appoint electors, rather than resist that power.[3] By coordinating, states constituting a majority of the Electoral College could effectively implement a popular vote.

Law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar defended the constitutionality of such a plan.[4] They proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be triggered once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.

The academic plan uses two constitutional features:

  • Presidential Electors Clause in Article 2, section 2 which gives each state the power to determine the manner in which its electors are selected.
  • Compact Clause, Article I, section 10, clause 3 under which it creates an enforceable compact.

The Amar brothers noted that such a plan could be enacted by the passage of laws in as few as eleven states and would probably not require Congressional approval, though this is not certain (see Debate below).

Advocacy in State Legislatures

John Koza, a computer science professor at Stanford had previously had exposure to interstate compacts from his work with state lottery commissions. (Koza is the inventor of the scratch-off lottery ticket). In 2006 Koza authored Every Vote Equal, a book that makes a detailed case for a specifically worded interstate compact to establish National Popular Vote. Koza, Barry Fadem and others formed National Popular Vote, a non-profit group to promote the legislation. The group has a bipartisan advisory committee including former US Senators Jake Garn, Birch Bayh, and David Durenberger, and former Representatives John Anderson, John Buchanan, and Tom Campbell.

By the time of the group's opening news conference in February 2006, the proposed interstate compact had been introduced in the Illinois legislature. With backing from National Popular Vote, the NPVIC legislation was introduced in five additional state legislatures in the 2006 session. It passed in the Colorado Senate and in both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

In 2007, NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 state legislatures. It was passed by legislative chambers in Arkansas,[5] California,[6] Colorado,[7] Illinois,[8] New Jersey[9] and North Carolina,[10] as well as both houses of the Hawaii legislature, where it was prevented from becoming law by a veto from Governor Linda Lingle.[11] The bill was also passed by both houses in Maryland, which became the first state to join the compact when Governor Martin O'Malley signed it into law on April 10, 2007.[12]

New Jersey became the second state to enter the compact when Governor Jon S. Corzine signed the bill into law on January 13, 2008.[13] Illinois became the third state to join when Governor Rod Blagojevich signed it into law on April 7, 2008[8] and Hawaii became the fourth on May 1, 2008 after the legislature overrode a second veto from the governor.[14] Washington became the fifth state to join when Gov. Christine Gregoire signed it into law on April 28, 2009.[15] Massaschusetts became the sixth state to join when Governor Deval Patrick signed it into law on August 4, 2010.[16]

As of September 2010, the NPVIC legislation has been introduced in 50 states.[17] In addition to the five enacting states, states where one chamber has adopted the NPVIC legislation are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina and Oregon. States where both chambers have passed the legislation are California, Colorado, Rhode Island and Vermont. The Washington, D.C. council has also passed the legislation, and it is now before the mayor.[18]

Two measures titled "Presidential Electors. Allocation by National Popular Vote. Interstate Agreement. Statute" were filed as California ballot propositions, but failed to get on the ballot.[19]

Year-by-year status maps

Note: The lower maps stretch and compress the states to reflect their relative numbers of electors.
Status of NPVIC legislation December 31, 2006 December 31, 2008 Current status

Passed into law:
■ passed into law

Pending:
■ passed in both houses
■ passed in one house
■ introduced

Did not pass:
■ passed in both houses
■ passed in one house
■ introduced

Not introduced:
■ not introduced
Participating states 0 4 (MD,NJ, IL, HI) 6 (+WA, MA)
Electoral votes 0 (of 270 needed) 50 (of 270 needed) 73 (of 270 needed)

List of states adopting a corresponding law

No. State Electoral
votes (EV)		 Date adopted Total EV % of 270 EV needed
1 Maryland 10 April 10, 2007 10 3.7 %
2 New Jersey 15 January 13, 2008 25 9.3 %
3 Illinois 21 April 7, 2008 46 17.0 %
4 Hawaii 4 May 1, 2008 50 18.5 %
5 Washington 11 April 28, 2009 61 22.6 %
6 Massachusetts 12 August 4, 2010 73 27.0 %

Motivation for introducing the compact

See also: Criticisms of the Electoral College

Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority of Americans support the idea of a popular vote for president. A 2007 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.[20] Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a direct vote.[21] The idea is popular for various reasons:

  • The Electoral College may encourage campaigns to cater to voters in a few pivotal swing states, while sidelining the rest of the country. 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 got very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.[22] This may mean that swing state issues receive more attention while issues important to other states are largely ignored.[23][24][25]
  • The Electoral College may also hurt voter turnout. Most voters living outside the swing states know well in advance who is likely to win their state, which may decrease their incentive to go to the polls and vote.[23][25] A report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that 2004 voter turnout in competitive swing states grew by 6.3% from the previous presidential election, compared to an increase of only 3.8% in noncompetitive states.[26] 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 10 closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country—a 17% gap.[27]
  • There is debate over whether the Electoral College favors small states or large states. Those who argue that it favors small states point out that such states have more electoral votes relative to their populations.[28][29] Others, however, believe that the potential of large states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.[30][31][32]
  • The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000. This scenario can affect both major parties. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore lost the election despite winning the popular vote. In 2004, Republican George W. Bush would have faced the same situation himself if there had been a 60,000 vote shift to John Kerry in Ohio.[23]

Debate

See also: Criticisms of the Electoral College
Source: The Washington Post, 2007 poll.

The project has been supported by editorials in several newspapers, including the New York Times,[23] the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times,[34] the Boston Globe,[35] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune,[36] 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.[29] An article by Pierre S. du Pont, IV, a former governor of Delaware, in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal[37] has 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. A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters.[38]

Some of the major issues are detailed below:

Small states and rural areas

Supporters of the compact argue that most small states are ignored under the current system because they are not swing states. They contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign in small, medium and large towns across the country, just as they currently do within competitive swing states.[39] Critics of the compact counter that smaller states have fewer voters, which would lead candidates to ignore them and focus instead on states with large populations. They also argue that the large numbers of popular votes in urban areas would draw candidates away from rural issues and needs.[37][40]

Close elections and voter fraud

Opponents of the compact have suggested that a direct national election would raise concerns about election fraud. Former Delaware Governor Pete du Pont argues that in 2000, "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin 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...". However, National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the incentive for fraud. They contend that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which an extremely small number of votes in any one of the numerous statewide tallies may determine the national winner.[37][40]

Nature of elections

Although supporters of the compact point out that direct election is already the method by which Americans elect their members of Congress, state leaders and local officials, opponents such as du Pont have argued that a direct popular vote in presidential contests could lead to a change in the current two party system. They contend that the difficulty of winning electoral votes under the current system may discourage third party and single-issue candidates from running, and therefore switching to a popular vote may lead more third party and single-issue candidates to enter the race.[37][41][42]

Electoral votes awarded to national winner, not state winner

Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii, have stated that they object to the compact because it would mean that their states' electoral votes may be awarded to a candidate who did not win statewide. Supporters of the compact have countered that under the popular vote system, the awarding of electoral votes would be effectively irrelevant; that giving the state's electoral votes to the national winner would be a mere symbolic formality with no political meaning, because the popular vote would have already decided the outcome.[43][44][45]

Congressional approval

Supporters of the compact believe the compact would be valid without congressional approval, but some critics maintain that the congressional approval is necessary. According to Every Vote Equal, although Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution requires interstate compacts receive the consent of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.[46] Every Vote Equal argues that the compact could never encroach upon federal power since the constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. Derek Muller, an opponent of the compact, argues that the NPVIC would nonetheless affect the federal system in such a way that it requires Congressional approval.[47] Regardless of whether or not Congressional approval is required, supporters of the NPVIC are seeking congressional approval so that Washington DC may be incorporated in the compact.

Legality

Supporters believe the compact is legal because Article II of the US Constitution establishes the plenary power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….

This Supreme Court affirmed this position as recently as 2000 in Bush v. Gore.[citation needed] These supporters include legal scholar Jamie Raskin, who co-sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, and Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar, who are among the nation's more visible scholars in constitutional law[48] and who were the compact's original proponents.

Law Professor David Gringer, however, suggests that the NPVIC could potentially violate the Voting Rights Act depending on how the Supreme Court would define "coalitional" or "influence" districts.[49] Robert Richie, executive director of FairVote, disputed such claims and said he was "confident in the legality of a rule change that treats all voters equally and is founded on the power given by the Constitution to the states."[50]

Gringer also assailed the NPVIC as "an end-run around the constitutional amendment process." Jamie Raskin has responded: "the term 'end run' has no known constitutional or legal meaning. More to the point, to the extent that we follow its meaning in real usage, the 'end run' is a perfectly lawful play."[51] Raskin argues that the adoption of the term "end run" by the compact's opponents is a tacit acknowledgment of the plan's legality.

State-by-state legislative history

In the table below, the status of a bill is marked "pending" (in yellow) if the bill has not yet been brought to a vote, but the legislative session in which it was introduced has not yet been concluded.

Bills are only listed if they received a vote in at least one chamber or if they are still pending in the current session. The compact has been introduced in all states at least once, but was not always voted on. The District of Columbia has electoral votes and has debated legislation, and is therefore also listed in the table.[52]

EV = Number of electoral votes

State EV Year Bill(s) Lower house Upper house Governor Status
Arkansas 6 2007 HB 1703 passed[5] died in committee[5] — failed
Arkansas 6 2009 HB 1339 passed[53] died in committee[53] — failed
California 55 2005–06 AB 2948 passed[54] passed[54] vetoed[54] failed
California 55 2007–08 SB 37 passed[6] passed[6] vetoed[6] failed[6]
Colorado 9 2006 SB 06-223 died in committee[55] passed — failed
Colorado 9 2007 SB 07-046 died in committee[7] passed[7] — failed
Colorado 9 2009 HB 1299 passed[56] died in committee[56][57] — failed
Connecticut 7 2009 HB 5016 passed[58][59] died in committee — failed
District of Columbia 3 2009–10 B18-0769 passed[60] N/A pending (mayor) pending
Delaware 3 2009–10 HB 198 passed[61] passed committee — failed
Hawaii 4 2007 HB 234,[62] SB 1956 did not override veto[11] overrode veto[11] vetoed[11] failed
Hawaii 4 2008 HB 3013, SB 2898 overrode veto[63] overrode veto[14] vetoed[14] passed
Illinois 21 2007–08 HB 858,[64] HB 1685, SB 78 passed[8] passed[8] signed[8] passed
Maine 4 2007–08 LD 1744 indef. postponed[65] passed[66] — failed
Maryland 10 2007 HB 148, SB 634 passed[67] passed[67] signed[67] passed
Massachusetts 12 2007–08 HB 4952, SB 445[68] passed[69] passed[70] not sent[71] failed[72]
Massachusetts 12 2009–10 H 4156 passed[73] passed[74] signed passed
Michigan 17 2007–2008 HB 6610 passed[75] died in committee[75] — failed
Montana 3 2007 SB 290 — failed[76] — failed
Nevada 5 2009 AB 413 passed[77] died in committee — failed
New Jersey 15 2006-07 A 4225, S 2695 passed[9] passed[9] signed[9] passed
New Mexico 5 2009 HB 383 passed[78][79] not voted on[80] — failed
New York 31 2009–10 S2286A / A1580B Ready for floor vote/pending[81] passed[81] — pending
North Carolina 15 2007–08 H1645, S954 died in committee[82] passed[10] — failed
North Dakota 3 2007 HB 1336 failed[83] — — failed
Oregon 7 2009 HB 2588 passed[84] died in committee — failed
Rhode Island 4 2008 H 7707, S 2112 passed[85] passed[85] vetoed[85] failed
Rhode Island 4 2009 HB 5569, SB 161 failed[86][87] passed[86] — failed
Vermont 3 2007–08 H 373, S 270 passed[88] passed[88] vetoed[88] failed
Vermont 3 2009–10 S 34 died in committee[89] passed[89] — failed
Washington 11 2007–08 HB 1750, SB 5628 died in committee[90] passed[91] — failed
Washington 11 2009–10 HB 1598, SB 5599 passed[92] passed[92] signed passed

Notes

  1. ^ "888-word interstate compact". National Popular Vote. Retrieved 2008-06-15.
  2. ^ "Responsibilities of the States in the Presidential Election". U.S. Electoral College. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 2008-06-05.
  3. ^ [1]
  4. ^ "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. 2001. Retrieved 2009-03-16.
  5. ^ a b c "Bill Status Query (HB1703)". Arkansas 86th General Assembly. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
  6. ^ a b c d e "Complete Bill History (SB 37)". California Legislature. 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-16. [dead link]
  7. ^ a b c "Summarized History for Bill Number SB07-046". Colorado Legislature. 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  8. ^ a b c d e "Bill Status of HB1685". Illinois General Assembly. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  9. ^ a b c d "Bill Search (Bill A4225 from Session 2006-07)". New Jersey Legislature. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  10. ^ a b "Senate Bill 954". North Carolina. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  11. ^ a b c d "Hawaii SB 1956, 2007". Retrieved 2008-06-06.
  12. ^ "Maryland sidesteps electoral college". MSNBC. 2007-04-11. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  13. ^ "New Jersey Rejects Electoral College". CBS News. CBS. 2008-01-13. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  14. ^ a b c "Hawaii SB 2898, 2008".
  15. ^ http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=WA
  16. ^ http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MA
  17. ^ http://nationalpopularvote.com/
  18. ^ . Business Wire http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100921007072/en/Washington-DC-City-Council-Passes-National-Popular. Retrieved 2010-09-21. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  19. ^ "California Initiative Update". California Secretary of State. Retrieved 2007-12-19.
  20. ^ "Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University: Survey of Political Independents" (PDF). The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-06-11.
  21. ^ "Americans Have Historically Favored Changing Way Presidents are Elected". Gallup. 2000-11-10. Retrieved 2008-06-11.
  22. ^ "Who Picks the President?". FairVote. Retrieved 2008-06-11.
  23. ^ a b c d "Drop Out of the College". New York Times. 2006-03-14. Retrieved 2008-06-11.
  24. ^ "Electoral College is outdated". Denver Post. 2007-04-09. Retrieved 2008-06-11.
  25. ^ a b Hill, David (2005). "The Electoral College, Mobilization, and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election". American Politics Research. pp. 33:700–725. Retrieved 2008-06-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  26. ^ "Committee for the Study of the American Electorate" (PDF). 2004-11-04. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
  27. ^ Lopez, Mark Hugo (2005). "The Youth Vote 2004" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-06-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  28. ^ "David Broder, on PBS Online News Hour's Campaign Countdown". 2000-11-06. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
  29. ^ a b "Electoral College should be maintained". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 2007-04-29. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
  30. ^ Timothy Noah (2000-12-13). "Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection"". Slate.com. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
  31. ^ Longley, Lawrence D. (1999). Electoral College Primer 2000. Yale University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  32. ^ Levinson, Sanford (2006). Our Undemocratic Constitution. Oxford University Press.[dead link]
  33. ^ Gregory Nasif, "American democracy: A broken system," The Diamondback, September 17, 2010. http://www.diamondbackonline.com/opinion/american-democracy-a-broken-system-1.1603199, accessed September 17, 2010.
  34. ^ "States Join Forces Against Electoral College". Los Angeles Times. 2006-06-05. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  35. ^ "A fix for the Electoral College". Boston Globe. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  36. ^ "How to drop out of the Electoral College: There's a way to ensure top vote-getter becomes president". Minneapolis Star Tribune. 2006-03-27. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  37. ^ a b c d du Pont, Pete (2006-08-29). "Trash the 'Compact'". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  38. ^ "National Popular Vote Compact Suggested Resource List".
  39. ^ http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-the-national-popular-vote-plan
  40. ^ a b "National Popular Vote" (PDF). National Popular Vote. 2007-06-01. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  41. ^ Hertzberg, Hendrik (2006-03-06). "Count 'Em". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  42. ^ Gregory Nasif, "American democracy: A broken system," The Diamondback, September 17, 2010. http://www.diamondbackonline.com/opinion/american-democracy-a-broken-system-1.1603199, accessed September 17, 2010.
  43. ^ SB-37, quoted on page 8
  44. ^ "NewsWatch". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 2007-04-24. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  45. ^ "What's Wrong With the Popular Vote?". Hawaii Reporter. 2007-04-11. Archived from the original on January 10, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  46. ^ "Background on Interstate Compacts". Every Vote Equal. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  47. ^ Muller, Derek T. (2007). "The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Election Law Journal. 6 (4): 372–393. doi:10.1089/elj.2007.6403. Retrieved 2008-06-15. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  48. ^ "Who Are the Top 20 Legal Thinkers in America?". Legal Affairs. Retrieved 2008-07-04.
  49. ^ Gringer, David (2008). "Why the National Popular Vote Plan Is the Wrong Way to Abolish the Electoral College" (PDF). Columbia Law Review. 108 (1). Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  50. ^ Shane, Peter (2006-05-16). "Democracy's Revenge? Bush v. Gore and the National Popular Vote". Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  51. ^ Raskin, Jamie (2008). "Neither the Red States nor the Blue States but the United States: The National Popular Vote and American Political Democracy" (PDF). Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. 7 (3): 188. doi:10.1089/elj.2008.7304. Retrieved 2009-12-06.
  52. ^ "National Popular Vote". Retrieved 12 June 2010.
  53. ^ a b "Bill Status History". Arkansas State Legislature. 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-14.
  54. ^ a b c "Complete Bill History (AB 2948)". California Legislature. 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-28.
  55. ^ "Summarized History for Bill Number SB06-223". Colorado Legislature. 2006. Retrieved 2008-06-05.
  56. ^ a b ""GOP tries but fails to kill electoral reform bill"". Examiner.com. 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-30. [dead link]
  57. ^ http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/05/03/colorado-senate-kills-national-popular-vote-bill/
  58. ^ "HB 5016". Connecticut General Assembly. 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-13.
  59. ^ http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/05/12/connecticut-house-passes-national-popular-vote-bill/
  60. ^ "Council of the District (Search for B18-0769)". Council of the District of Columbia. 2009. Retrieved 2010-09-23.
  61. ^ "House Bill #198". Delaware General Assembly. 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-25.
  62. ^ "HB 234". Hawaii Legislature. 2007.
  63. ^ "HB 3013". Hawaii Legislature. 2008.
  64. ^ "Bill Status of HB0858". Illinois General Assembly. 2008.
  65. ^ "Status of LD 1744". Maine Legislature. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  66. ^ "Maine Senate passes National Popular Vote plan". Ballot Access News. 2008-04-02.
  67. ^ a b c "House Bill 148". Maryland. 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  68. ^ "Senate, No. 445". Massachusetts Legislature. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
  69. ^ "House, No. 4952". Massachusetts Legislature. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
  70. ^ "Senate". Ballot-Access.org. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-31.
  71. ^ 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.
  72. ^ Viser, Matt (2008-08-01). "Legislature agrees to back Pike finances". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-08-11.
  73. ^ "House, No. 4156". Massachusetts General Court. 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-11.
  74. ^ Andersen, Travis (2010-07-16). "Winner-take-all bill is OK'd by state Senate". The Boston Globe.
  75. ^ a b "House Bill 6610 (2008)". Michigan Legislature. 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-11.
  76. ^ "Detailed Bill Information (SB290)". Montana Legislature. 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  77. ^ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Reports/history.cfm?ID=801
  78. ^ "HB383". New Mexico Legislature. 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-14.
  79. ^ http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/02/20/new-mexico-house-passes-national-popular-vote-bill/
  80. ^ http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/03/21/new-mexico-legislature-adjourns-without-passing-national-popular-vote-plan/
  81. ^ a b "S02286 Summary". New York Legislature. 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-02.
  82. ^ "House Bill 1645". North Carolina General Assembly. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-22.
  83. ^ "Measure Actions". North Dakota State Government. 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
  84. ^ "Search for Specific Measure Number". Oregon State Legislature. 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
  85. ^ a b c "Legislative Status Report (see 7707, 2112)". Rhode Island Legislature. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  86. ^ a b "Legislative status report". Rhode Island Legislature. 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-25.
  87. ^ http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/06/19/rhode-island-house-defeats-national-popular-vote-bill/
  88. ^ a b c "The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.270)". Retrieved 2008-06-05.
  89. ^ a b "The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.34)". Retrieved 2009-04-30.
  90. ^ "HB1750, 2007-08". Washington State Legislature. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
  91. ^ "SB5628". Washington Legislature. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  92. ^ a b "SB5599, 2009". Washington State Legislature. 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-23.

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact&oldid=386668959"