If one or more states did so, and it affected the outcome of the election, the result would be a political crisis that would make 2000 look tame. Unlike in that case, the Supreme Court would be unable to review the matter because it would be an exercise in plenary lawmaking authority. Challenges in Congress to the electoral vote count would be almost inevitable. Whatever the outcome, it would result from an assertion of raw political power that the losing side would have good reason to see as illegitimate.Now it appears that reapportionment is not going to favor the blue states; it seems lots of peeps are moving from blue states to red states. Why? Because the taxes are so high in the blue states.
The Tax Blog Prof has the details here:
Rank | State | Property Tax |
1 | New Jersey | $6,579 |
2 | Connecticut | $4,738 |
3 | New Hampshire | $4,636 |
4 | New York | $3,755 |
5 | Rhode Island | $3,618 |
6 | Massachusetts | $3,511 |
7 | Illinois | $3,507 |
8 | Vermont | $3,444 |
9 | Wisconsin | $3,007 |
10 | California | $2,893 |
United States Average | $1,917 | |
41 | Tennessee | $933 |
42 | New Mexico | $880 |
43 | Kentucky | $843 |
44 | Oklahoma | $796 |
45 | South Carolina | $689 |
46 | Arkansas | $532 |
47 | Mississippi | $508 |
48 | West Virginia | $464 |
49 | Alabama | $398 |
50 | Louisiana | $243 |
Eight of the twelve migrating seats will arrive in income-tax-free states. Conversely, all of the states losing seats impose an income tax. Put another way, two-thirds of the added seats will go to the less than one-fifth of states that do not have an income tax and one-hundred percent of the lost seats come from states that impose an income tax.Apparently people are voting with their feet. A great example of this is the movement of wealthier folks out of New York to Florida. One sports team owner, Tom Golisano, admitted he was reluctant to pay almost $14,000 a day to the state of New York. Rush is well known to have moved to Florida for that very reason, and LeBron James is said to have saved $25 million by taking a gig in Florida as opposed to New York or Ohio.
What this means is that people are determining what works for them and what doesn't when it comes to governmental policies.
Perhaps Governor Paterson's remarks about Rush's move to Florida are most enlightening to those of us who want to control as much of our own destiny as possible:
“If I knew that would be the result,” he said after a speech Thursday morning in Midtown, “I would’ve thought about the taxes earlier.”It looks like Governor Paterson is getting his wish. He raised taxes and people, not necessarily all the people Paterson wants to get rid of, are moving.
This condescending attitude is typical of those wish to control the minute details of citizens' lives, represented in dollars.
Your description of the National Popular Vote bill and Taranto's premise is not valid, that "because the power of legislatures to choose the method of selecting electors is plenary, there is no question that the Constitution would permit faithless lawmakers to exit the NPVIC."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, a withdrawal from the compact occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all rule that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”
An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement.68 If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEnacting states are NOT opting out of the electoral college and going with the popular vote, in the event of questions in a presidential election.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their ELECTORAL VOTES for president. So the bill obviously does not have the enacting states opting out of the Electoral College.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Huh. Rationalize it all you want. You people are losing votes because people are moving out of your high tax states. You've done this to yourself.
ReplyDelete