Maroon Dawn said:
. States can not enter into political alliances/agreements with each other.
This is false.
that only applies if the compact is enhancing state power to the detriment of federal power.
Constitutionally, the "compact among states" clause does not required congressional approval of every agreement between states. States make compacts with each other all the time.
I don't think this case is clear for either side on that question.
but that doesn't matter because the proponents of this national popular vote plan to submit it to Congress for approval.
however, there is also an argument that Congress is prohibited from even reviewing this legislation approve it.
SCOTUS says congress approving a compact makes it federal law. Congress cannot make a a federal law on how electors are chosen, that is left exclusively to the states.
So this would be decided by SCOTUS on basis of whether it allowed under Article II.
gut feeling is that a state could agree to do this, but could not bind any other state to having to do it.
meaning that the "Compact" were struck down, each of these states could just do it on their own.
(though I would bet that many states own constitutions prevent it)
There is no requirement to even have a popular vote at all. South Carolina went 12 elections before having a popular vote
The "electoral college" is nothing now like it was when first enacted. Its a relic that needs to be changed. Not for a popular vote nationwide but for simply awarding the votes for each state based on popular vote winner on that state. Get the most votes in Texas in 2028, you get 40 electoral votes. No middle man; no faithless elector issue; no way to game the system. Simple way to keep the republic
