Bills have been introduced in each house of the Florida legislature to amend the oath of office that newly-elected legislators take at the beginning of a legislative session. The bills provide that the oath should be expanded to say that the legislator acknowledges that the National Popular Vote Plan would be illegal. Here is the text. The bills are SR 1458, by Senator Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala); and HR 323, by Representative Bob Rommel (R-Naples).
In the meantime, bills for Florida to join the National Popular Plan have been introduced in both houses. They are HB 335 and SB 908.
I suspect and hope that the National Popular Vote Plan isn’t legal, but I’m not sure.
Bills to require legislators to take such an oath to not pass it I’m much surer are illegally adding ideological requirements to holding office.
Otherwise, any legislature can bar all future legislators who disagree with them on any given issues.
I’m no fan of the National Popular Vote Plan, but I don’t think you can or should bind the legislature like this. The logic is kind of strained. It’s up to them to decide in the first place whether they want it.
FL gerrymander minority rule HACKS at work.
Failure to get a court to declare NPV scheme UN-const –
blatant violation of 14-1 and 14-2 —
having votes OUTSIDE a State determine results INSIDE a State.
—
Abolish the deadly EC timebomb –
1860 EC timebomb >>> 750,0000 DEAD in 1861-1866.
The FL oath machination by the GANGSTER oligarchs also blatantly SUBVERTS USA Const Art V –
proposing / ratifying ANY USA Const Amdt –
and ANY interstate compact stuff in 1-10-3.
IE – more HACKS to be arrested for insurrection against the USA Const.
Think FL HACKS in 1861 — now much more dangerous.
Sounds like a couple of little Republicans in Florida are scared of losing their Electoral College small state vote advantage.
Shawn, the NPV is absolutely legal. For your reading pleasure here is a link to all you need to know about the NPV:
http://www.every-vote-equal.com/
Ranked Choice Voting for President makes more sense in a swing state like Florida,anyway.
The states have 100% autonomy to assign Electoral College winners however they want. So a state binding their EC to the national popular vote would theoretically be legal and constitutional. I am not aware of any arguments against this plan that would convince me that it is illegal or unconstitutional. We already know that it is legal, for the most part, to bind electors to the state victor.
ABOLISH the super-timebomb EC
see the 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866 due to the 40 pct minority rule election of Lincoln in Nov 1860.
—-
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA –
USA citizen, 18 yrs olde. PERIOD.
NOOOO mental/criminal machinations by the monarch/oligarch HACKS.
PR and Appv and TOTSOP
Just a hypothetical, since states “have 100% autonomy to assign Electoral College winners however they want” could they pass a law that would automatically assign them to the GOP or DEM candidate regardless of the vote and cancel the presidential election?
@ BL: Before the Civil War, several state legislatures picked the Presidential Electors. Nothing has been added to the Constitution since then to prohibit them from doing so again, if they so choose.
In a state like Florida, 29 electoral votes are up for grabs. I suggest letting candidates run for either at-large electors or district electors. In 2016 there were 6 Presidential candidates. Assume Hillary faces Trump for the at-large electors. Johnson, Stein, Castle and De la Fuente qualify for the district electors. Each district
12
34
13
24
14
23
6 matchups. Each matchup for 4 districts. Remaining 3 districts will have 2 or 3 candidates.
In each district, voters get a double vote: 1 vote for the at-large candidates and 1 vote for the district candidates. The district winners are allocated “virtual electoral votes” but the at-large vote will be counted district by district. The at-large candidate with the most district wins gets the remaining 27 electoral votes.
The minority rule gerrymander oligarch gangsters in CONTROL in each State/DC will have the rotted EC system that gets the most 12 Amdt EC votes for the gang with the least votes.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
since 1832 for Prez / VP elections.
25.7 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED R PREZ TRUMP IN 2016 – 270 of 538 ECV – 28 STATES + MECD2.
Media is too EVIL stupid to understand gerrymander math – esp on Sunday AM talking heads TV shows.
—
Note 14-2 and 24-1
Will the 2020 gerrymander election produce Civil WAR II ???
1860 gerrymander election >>> 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866.
@Richard: Looking at the bills, I don’t see them as actually amending the oath of office to swear not to support the National Popular Vote Plan. Rather, the operative portion says, “Be It Resolved by the Senate of the State of Florida: That the Senate of the State of Florida reaffirms the oath of office made by each member of the Senate to support, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, including the 12th Amendment, and supports the preservation of the Electoral College.” The House bill is similar except for substituting “House of Representatives” for “Senate.”
The implication of the resolutions is that failing to preserve the Electoral College would be inconsistent with supporting the U.S. Constitution, but they don’t actually purport to require the legislators to oppose the National Popular Vote Plan.
The oath of office is prescribed by the state constitution anyway and could not be amended with ordinary legislation.
@BL,
The Congress in joint session counts the electoral votes.
Congress could determine that a vote is illegitimate. In 1876, there were multiple “votes” from several states. There was also an issue of whether an elector from Oregon was eligible.
There are statutory requirement on how appointed electors are certified. Congress could reject appointments that are irregular.
Strictly speaking, electors do not have to be appointed on TFTATFMIN. When the uniform appointment date was established, there was a provision added that permitted appointment on a later date (see 3 USC 2). This was done so that states could require majority for election. This has been used twice, in 1844 for Massachusetts, and in 1860 for Georgia. In both cases the legislature appointed the electors, but there is no reason that a runoff could not be held.
Note, there is a legal fiction that when a popular election, that the appointment is made then, even though it might not be determined who had actually been “appointed”. You could imagine a mob scene with several million voters screaming out their choices. The chair finally says just write down your vote on a slip of paper, and give it to a teller. It will take some time to collect all the sheets of paper and tabulate the results.
BL–
14-2 dormant — due to SCOTUS MORONS