On March 29, California Assemblymember Jerry Hill amended one of his election law bills to encompass the National Popular Vote Plan bill for presidential elections. The bill will be co-sponsored by Assemblymember Brian Nestande (R-Palm Desert), caucus chair for the Assembly Republicans. The bill has also been endorsed by several prominent former Republican legislators. The bill is AB 459.
Gee the Elephant party hack robots want those marginal Prez Elephant votes in CA to elect a gerrymander Elephant Prez.
As usual – NO uniform definition of Elector in the NPV Scheme from Hell.
NO approval of the OBVIOUS inter-state compact scheme by the gerrymander Congress.
Blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause INSIDE a State by the NPV scheme from Hell.
But of course the standard morons will be hyping the scheme from Hell.
It violates the California Constitution which guarantees parties that have a presidential primary the right to participate in the general election.
I don’t understand Jim Riley’s comment. How does the NPV take away any party’s right to participate? The NPV is only about how winners are determined after an election.
Under current law, if the Libertarian Party has a presidential primary in California, they have the right to have its candidates placed on the general election.
For example, in 2008, Bob Barr was on all California ballots and had an equal opportunity with Obama, McCain, McKinney, Nader, and Keyes to be the choice of the presidential electors appointed on the basis of votes cast by Californians.
Barr did not lose in California because of any barriers that the State of California placed in his way. They didn’t leave his name off the ballot in some counties, or refuse to count votes cast for him.
But the NPV scheme would count votes from States or entities where Barr was not on the ballot, and in some cases failed to even count write-in votes for. By entering into the NPV scheme, California would be violating the right of the Libertarian Party of California to participate in the general election.
Richard:
I think it was late last year when you wrote that someone was planning to circulate a petition for changing California to the system currently employed by Maine and Nebraska. As fas as you know is such an initiative circulating? Also, if it was approved by the voters wouldn’t it then permanently prevent the NPV from being passed by the California Legislature?
#5, I don’t know if the initiative has a realistic chance of getting on the ballot or not. I wish someone else who knows more about that will comment.
Richard Winger
Did I not raise the issue on its being unconstituional and
the author was going to re-introduce it in another form?
Deemer
Since the court ruled on March 11, 2011 in King vs. Robinson that case is now over. Will you turn the party
funds and records of the AIP over to the current Treasurer of the American Independent Party?