On March 17, the Colorado House passed HB 1299, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. The vote was 34-29.
Comments
Colorado House Passes National Popular Vote Plan Bill — No Comments
I heard on the radio that the vote was along party lines, with three Democrats voting with all Republicans to oppose it, but with the Democratic majority in the Colorado House having enough votes to pass it.
It was said that a previous version was introduced in the Colorado Senate, so expect them to pass it on to Governor Ritter, who apparently has not said if he will sign or veto it.
A few years ago Colorado voters rejected allocating Colorado’s electoral college votes proportionally (it remains winner-take-all, like nearly all states, to maximize swing state potential), so I think this is risky politically for the Democrats, as this bill would give up that swing state vote potential (Colorado was a battleground state last year).
more (reporter’s blog) at
politicswest.com/37668/popular_vote_bill_just_popular_enough_house
It’s good politics — more than 70% of Americans, including those in Colorado, think that a national popular vote where every voter has an equal right to hold their president accountable is the way to go.
Colorado was close in 2008, but might not be before long, and when you don’t count, you don’t count at all — a national popular vote guarantees its voters will matter in the same proportion to the rest of the country.
Republicans in some other states are getting back on board the national popular vote issue they traditionally backed in equal numbers to Democrats.
How could the House pass a bill without voter input? If we voted it down a few years ago, we must have had to vote on it then. How is it possible that the House can just vote something as important as this into law without any input from the voters? WHy is this not being covered in the media? No one is talking about it? Isn’t this important to every one of us?
Barb, did Colorado have a statewide popular vote on a National Popular Vote plan, or was that the proportional electoral vote allocation plan during 2004?
Second, isn’t it the job of elected officials to vote on things like this, since in a republic we hand over the power to do so on election day? Couldn’t Colorado voters overturn this law by referendum?
#3 Colorado is one of the few States where its constitution provides for the manner in which its presidential electors are chosen. HB 1299 is in apparent conflict with the Colorado Constitution.
Of course any final determination would be by the Colorado Supreme Court, as happened after the 2004 congressional redistricting. Since the political alignment is reversed on this issue, expect the parties to take the opposite position that they did on redistricting, even though the Colorado Constitution is less ambiguous in the case of presidential electors. Even the Supreme Court could swap sides (it was a partisan decision on redistricting). Expect the Denver Post to opine on the wisdom of the decision if the constitution is ignored.
The reason that there was a statewide vote in 2004, was that it was (1) proposed by the initiative process; and (2) it would have amended the Colorado Constitution.
There were additional nefarious reasons. It was funded by a wealthy California Democrat who was trying to peel off electoral votes from the Republicans. Rather than proposing the change for California, he funded the effort in Colorado.
It purported to have effect on the 2004 presidential election. That is, the ultimate meaning of your “X” on the presidential race would depend on the “X” on the initiative. It even intended to change the canvassing and recount procedure for the constitutional amendment itself.
(eg. if it appeared that the referendum on the initiative would be close, the canvass and recount would be accelerated beyond what is provided by current law in order to meet the national schedule for appointing presidential electors).
One reason the referendum failed so miserably in 2004, most everyone caught on to the problems of changing the procedure for an election and having that change apply at the same time.
It would be like proposing a change to the method of amending the US Constitution (say to provide for national popular vote to approve amendments), and having the popular vote procedure apply to the amendment that changes the amedment procedure.
It was also poorly written with regard to allocation of representatives, and conditions under which recounts were warranted.
#2, Rob, do you know if the polls ask whether voters would want the same candidates to be on the ballot; have candidates nominated by direct national primary; require majority election; and an effective national system of canvassing and recount.
I heard on the radio that the vote was along party lines, with three Democrats voting with all Republicans to oppose it, but with the Democratic majority in the Colorado House having enough votes to pass it.
It was said that a previous version was introduced in the Colorado Senate, so expect them to pass it on to Governor Ritter, who apparently has not said if he will sign or veto it.
A few years ago Colorado voters rejected allocating Colorado’s electoral college votes proportionally (it remains winner-take-all, like nearly all states, to maximize swing state potential), so I think this is risky politically for the Democrats, as this bill would give up that swing state vote potential (Colorado was a battleground state last year).
more (reporter’s blog) at
politicswest.com/37668/popular_vote_bill_just_popular_enough_house
It’s good politics — more than 70% of Americans, including those in Colorado, think that a national popular vote where every voter has an equal right to hold their president accountable is the way to go.
Colorado was close in 2008, but might not be before long, and when you don’t count, you don’t count at all — a national popular vote guarantees its voters will matter in the same proportion to the rest of the country.
Republicans in some other states are getting back on board the national popular vote issue they traditionally backed in equal numbers to Democrats.
How could the House pass a bill without voter input? If we voted it down a few years ago, we must have had to vote on it then. How is it possible that the House can just vote something as important as this into law without any input from the voters? WHy is this not being covered in the media? No one is talking about it? Isn’t this important to every one of us?
Barb, did Colorado have a statewide popular vote on a National Popular Vote plan, or was that the proportional electoral vote allocation plan during 2004?
Second, isn’t it the job of elected officials to vote on things like this, since in a republic we hand over the power to do so on election day? Couldn’t Colorado voters overturn this law by referendum?
#3 Colorado is one of the few States where its constitution provides for the manner in which its presidential electors are chosen. HB 1299 is in apparent conflict with the Colorado Constitution.
Of course any final determination would be by the Colorado Supreme Court, as happened after the 2004 congressional redistricting. Since the political alignment is reversed on this issue, expect the parties to take the opposite position that they did on redistricting, even though the Colorado Constitution is less ambiguous in the case of presidential electors. Even the Supreme Court could swap sides (it was a partisan decision on redistricting). Expect the Denver Post to opine on the wisdom of the decision if the constitution is ignored.
The reason that there was a statewide vote in 2004, was that it was (1) proposed by the initiative process; and (2) it would have amended the Colorado Constitution.
There were additional nefarious reasons. It was funded by a wealthy California Democrat who was trying to peel off electoral votes from the Republicans. Rather than proposing the change for California, he funded the effort in Colorado.
It purported to have effect on the 2004 presidential election. That is, the ultimate meaning of your “X” on the presidential race would depend on the “X” on the initiative. It even intended to change the canvassing and recount procedure for the constitutional amendment itself.
(eg. if it appeared that the referendum on the initiative would be close, the canvass and recount would be accelerated beyond what is provided by current law in order to meet the national schedule for appointing presidential electors).
One reason the referendum failed so miserably in 2004, most everyone caught on to the problems of changing the procedure for an election and having that change apply at the same time.
It would be like proposing a change to the method of amending the US Constitution (say to provide for national popular vote to approve amendments), and having the popular vote procedure apply to the amendment that changes the amedment procedure.
It was also poorly written with regard to allocation of representatives, and conditions under which recounts were warranted.
#2, Rob, do you know if the polls ask whether voters would want the same candidates to be on the ballot; have candidates nominated by direct national primary; require majority election; and an effective national system of canvassing and recount.
Or were these essentially push polls?