Law Professor Vikram Amar writes here that the June 29 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission can help proponents of the National Popular Vote Plan. The decision helps that movement because now the state initiative process can be used to expand the list of states that have passed the plan.
NO uniform definition of Elector in the NPV scheme from Hell.
Obvious interstate compact requiring Congress approval.
Blatant violation of 14th Amdt Equal Protection Clause in Sec. 1 and Sec. 2 — having votes OUTSIDE a sovereign State determine election results INSIDE such sovereign State.
—-
Const Amdt –
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the USA.
P.R. and NONPARTISAN App.V.
Even with the use of initiatives, the National Popular Vote Plan (NPVP) has little chance, IMO. Election data shows that more and more states have become decisively partisan over time, meaning that the number of so-called “swing states” is becoming smaller. Thus, an increasing number of states, either through the legislature, or through popular initiative, will become resistant, IMO, to the idea of “giving away” their electoral votes to a Presidential candidate who may have won the national popular vote total, contrary to popular vote in their own state.