Hi. Welcome to On Politics, your guide to the day in national politics. We’re filling in for Lisa Lerer today. (It’s good to be back!) |
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that states could ban so-called faithless electors — meaning, for instance, that if Colorado’s voters choose a Democrat for president, Colorado can require its Electoral College members to vote for the Democrat. The decision will help stop electors from “going rogue,” as seven of 538 did in 2016. |
It also raises some broader questions about the future of the Electoral College, and, in particular, about the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which states accounting for at least 270 electoral votes would agree to award their electors to whichever presidential candidate received the most votes nationwide. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, with 196 electoral votes among them, have signed on, but their commitment will not take effect unless enough states join them to reach 270. |
Supporters of the compact see it as a way to functionally abolish the Electoral College without going through the extraordinarily difficult process of amending the Constitution to abolish it formally. |
So if the Supreme Court has confirmed that electors can be required to vote in accordance with their state’s popular vote, does that mean they can also be required to vote in accordance with the national popular vote? Did proponents of a national popular vote just get a hidden victory? |
In a word, no — but there could be some subtle benefits for them. |
“The kind of challenges that would be mounted against the National Popular Vote Compact involve different legal questions,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. |
Those challenges would probably relate to the Compact Clause of the Constitution, which says in part that states can’t “enter into any agreement or compact with another state” without congressional approval. Courts have generally found that this restriction applies only to interstate agreements that increase states’ power at the expense of the federal government, or that lessen the power of states that aren’t in the agreement. |
The question, then, is “whether or not the National Popular Vote Compact would be the kind of compact between states that could not be enacted without congressional approval,” Professor Hasen said, “and that’s something that the court didn’t speak to at all.” |
There are, however, some indirect ways in which the ruling could affect national popular vote efforts. |
From a legal standpoint, you can’t draw a line between the court’s ruling on Monday and national popular vote efforts, but “politically speaking, you absolutely can,” said Jessica A. Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who studies election law and hosts a podcast on politics and the law. |
“By strengthening the Electoral College and making it more rigid, I think it actually emboldens the national popular vote movement,” Professor Levinson said. |
The chance for electors to go rogue in past elections, she said, may actually have lessened the pressure to abolish the Electoral College because electors had the ability, at least in theory, to support the winner of the national popular vote if they wanted to — even if, in practice, they almost never did (case in point: 2016). Monday’s ruling ensures that in most states, that will no longer be allowed. |
More practically speaking, if the court had ruled the other way, it might have made the National Popular Vote Compact unenforceable. After all, if the justices had found that states cannot force electors to vote a certain way, then states presumably couldn’t have forced electors to abide by the national popular vote. |
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. brought that up in oral arguments in May, asking Lawrence Lessig, who was arguing in favor of faithless electors, “Under your view, there would be no way to enforce the popular vote referendum?” |
Mr. Lessig said that assessment was correct: The compact would require participating states to choose a set of electors “that fits with the winner of the national popular vote, and that slate of electors then would have the same discretion, legal discretion, that we believe any elector has.” |
The justices’ rejection of Mr. Lessig’s arguments, then, at least leaves open the possibility that the compact could be enforced. |
Interestingly, Mr. Lessig supports the National Popular Vote Compact and had suggested that he saw the lawsuit the Supreme Court resolved on Monday as a way to put pressure on Americans to abandon the Electoral College system. The idea was that perhaps with enough faithless electors, the system would become so chaotic that there would be little choice but to tear it down. |
Professor Levinson said she was not convinced by that argument. “We have plenty of broken systems, and it seems to me we’re fairly comfortable living with them,” she said. |
| Adam Liptak contributed reporting. |
We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We’ll try to answer it. Have a comment? We’re all ears. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. |
Joe Biden stays home on July 4. (Maybe he had ice cream.) |
On the Fourth of July last year, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was exactly where you’d expect him to be: marching in a parade. (In the fittingly named town of Independence, Iowa, of all places.) |
This year, there would be no handshakes and, presumably, a lot less sweat. Mr. Biden recorded a video message that his campaign posted on social media on July 4, but the candidate himself made no public appearances. |
The holiday weekend was yet another example of how the campaign trail — or this year’s digital approximation of it — looks a lot different in the age of coronavirus. Or at least it does for Mr. Biden, who continues to rely mostly on virtual appearances. |
Mr. Biden has made occasional in-person appearances over the past several weeks, but those appearances have been relatively infrequent and are mostly confined to Delaware and Pennsylvania, with mask wearing and social distancing. His virtual appearances have typically been conducted from his home in Wilmington, Del., but on Friday he had a different backdrop: his vacation house in Rehoboth Beach. |
“I’m going to follow the docs’ orders, not just for me, but for the country,” Mr. Biden said last week in a high school gym in Wilmington, where he gave a speech and answered questions from the news media. Reporters had their temperatures checked before the event, and they were seated in folding chairs set up in large white circles, to ensure sufficient distancing. |
Mr. Biden has not held any in-person rallies since the virus shut down campaigning in March, and his campaign has not yet announced his next in-person appearance. President Trump, on the other hand, has taken a different approach: He held an indoor rally in Tulsa, Okla., last month, and he is planning to hold an outdoor rally in Portsmouth, N.H., on Saturday. |
This morning’s On Politics newsletter misidentified the state of which Asa Hutchinson is governor. It is Arkansas, not Alabama. |
Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox. |
Thanks for reading. On Politics is your guide to the political news cycle, delivering clarity from the chaos. |
Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. |
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home