Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The Constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

1/4/2017

7 Comments

 
Picture
By Justin Yang
​

Justin Yang is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.

Another presidential election has passed by. There were times during the campaign when the polls were close enough to trigger traumatic memories of the 2000 election – recounts, legal battles, uncertainty. The root of the problem, and our fears, is the Electoral College, a fundamentally flawed system that allows for undemocratic results by counting some people’s votes more than others.

​
For most people, the simple and obvious answer would be to abolish the Electoral College and institute a popular vote for president, but that would require major electoral reform through an amendment to the Constitution. This isn’t easy – two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the states would need to propose the amendment, and three-fourths of the states need to ratify it. However, people have offered an alternative way that wouldn’t add a single drop of ink to the Constitution: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. [1] However, because it would enact major electoral reform and allegedly subvert the Constitution, its legality and constitutionality is under question. I believe that such a compact would pass constitutional scrutiny.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is, as its name suggests, an agreement between states. This particular compact utilizes the state’s power to award their electoral votes to a candidate in an ingenious way: it binds states to meet after the election and give all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote. However, the Compact only comes into effect once enough states have adopted it to control a majority of votes in the Electoral College: 270 votes. [1] This is so that it will be guaranteed that the popular vote winner will win the Electoral College and become President. As of right now, ten states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Compact. It’s working its way through the Pennsylvania state legislature right now, making an examination of its constitutionality all the more pertinent. [2]

​
The Constitution allows for states to enter into agreements with one another, with the consent of Congress. This is seen in Article One, Section Ten: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…” [3] Therefore, the very act of creating an interstate compact in and of itself is not prohibited by the Constitution, as long as there is congressional approval.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) that a compact or agreement between states only requires congressional approval if it would “encroach upon or impair the supremacy of the United States.” [4] Justice Field would further write, “Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” [4] It is clear here that the proper reading of this clause would be that congressional approval is only necessary and required if an interstate compact infringes upon the powers of the federal government.

The Constitution vests the power of choosing electors for the Electoral College entirely in the states; Article Two, Section Two reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” [3] A state can allocate their electoral votes however they want – most states do it in a winner-takes-all system, where all their electoral votes go the winner of their own state, but Maine and Nebraska do it differently, as is within their power. The Compact is simply the agreement of a state to appoint electors who would vote for the national popular vote winner. This is a state power, and it does not challenge the supremacy of the federal government. Therefore, in accordance to Virginia v. Tennessee, this Compact does not require congressional approval – the states are entirely allowed to do it themselves.

Although the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact appears to subvert the Constitution by essentially changing the way we elect the President without changing the Constitution, an examination of the law says otherwise. The Constitution grants states the power to enter into an agreement or compact with other states, as long as there is congressional approval. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that congressional approval is only required if the compact infringes on the powers of the federal government. Since the Constitution vests in states the power to award electoral votes to a candidate as they chose, this particular Compact is not encroaching on federal power in any way, and is therefore not prohibited by the Constitution.


[1] Delaware House of Representatives. “Agreements Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” 146th Delaware General Assembly, House Bill No. 55. Accessed November 3, 2016. http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+55/$file/legis.html?open
[2] “Bill Information (History) – House Bill 1542; Regular Session 2015-2016.” Pennsylvania General Assembly. Accessed November 3, 2016. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/bill_history.cfm?syear=2015&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=1542
[3] “The Constitution of the United States of America.” US Government Publishing Office. Accessed November 3, 2016. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-REV-2016/pdf/GPO-CONAN-REV-2016-6.pdf
[4] “Virginia v. Tennessee” Findlaw.com. Accessed November 3, 2016. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/148/503.html

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
7 Comments
Kurt
2/14/2019 09:49:14 am

"a fundamentally flawed system that allows for undemocratic results." Since when was the United States a democracy? This is a Republic.

Reply
RobertsUrMothersBrother
12/23/2019 04:06:42 pm

Seems to me that making agreements to subvert the Constitution would "encroach upon the supremacy of the United States (aka the federal government as defined by the constitution)" in extremely obvious ways. There's no way this works without the approval of Congress, and there's no way it gets that, currently.

Reply
Mike
5/4/2019 02:09:00 pm

I am not a lawyer so maybe I am looking at this all wrong and I 'get' that you are suggesting that it would pass muster as not violating the specifics of the Constitution but it surely violates the spirit of it, "...this particular Compact is not encroaching on federal power in any way,"

Since the Preamble to the Constitution starts off saying "We the People..." isn't it suppose to protect the Rights of the Citizens? As I see it, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does nothing more than take away the indiviual Rights of the Citizens in a State, and give the Votes away as the State Legislators so desired at some point in their States history. However, your voting Right as a individual is removed. Now granted that the Electors didn't always have to vote the way the majority of the Citizens wanted but at least, I would think, they would have had to justify their decision to go against the Citizens of the State.

"The root of the problem, and our fears, is the Electoral College, a fundamentally flawed system that allows for undemocratic results by counting some people’s votes more than others." But we aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic and everytime I see the State or Federal legislators make a decision to alter or circumvent the Constitution, it seems that we as individuals are losing more Rights.

It seems to me that The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is nothing more then of letting California and New York to pick all our Presidents in the future because Democrats want it that way, (hate making it Political but we all know that it is),

Isn't that what the Founding Fathers were trying to protect us against? Where the majority rules? Be careful what you wish for because Dictators are most persuasive when they are running for office and will surely get the Popular vote.... the cruelty starts after they are in.

Reply
John Breithaupt
5/29/2019 03:24:44 am

Thank you for your elucidation of the Constitutional issue raised by the compact. The manner of choosing electors would seem to be vested unambiguously in the states. But expect the compact to be challenged in the courts — by states’ rights conservatives. And expect the challenge to be upheld by the United States Supreme Court — by the court’s majority of states’ rights conservatives. And if you think such an outcome implausible, remember the majority opinion in Bush v Gore, which overturned the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that a recount was could go ahead. — again, written by states’ rights conservatives.

Reply
James Fleig
6/30/2019 06:47:44 pm

In the upcoming 2020 election cycle, I am going to assume the candidates could be Donald Trump against Democrat Elizabeth Warren, and I will further assume Pennsylvania adopts the Popular vote Interstate Compact. In this case, it is very probable Sen Warren could win the popular vote in Pennsylvania, and Donald Trump could win the popular vote nationally, thereby winning all of Pa's 20 electoral votes. Warren voters would then,undoubtedly appeal to the courts claiming Pennsylvania had effectively disenfranchised them. This could happen in multiple states, calling into question the validity of the election and the legitimacy of the administration, much as now, only worse. A battle fought on numerous fronts.

Reply
Rick Schiffner
7/20/2019 11:23:45 am

The piece does a fine job of describing the machinery of working around the ectoral college. Unfortunately the conslcuoon is reached based on the unlikeliness that the Supreme Court (and that's where this case will end up) would rule that the compact does not "infringe on the powers of the federal government." It absolutely does. The electoral college resides under the power of the United States Constitution, not the individual states. A state compact would not get to jump that caveat and go straight to the electors clause. The court will.most assuredly see it that way.

Reply
mjazzguitar
2/12/2020 07:05:48 pm

The article by Mr. Yang was well written, but he displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how our political system was designed, when he states:
"the Electoral College [is] a fundamentally flawed system that allows for undemocratic results by counting some people’s votes more than others."

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​