Seven Democratic State Senators in Michigan have introduced Joint Resolution P. If enacted, it would ask the voters in 2014 if they wish to amend the state Constitution, to provide that all presidential electors in Michigan be those nominated by the party that placed first in the statewide vote, in presidential elections.
The proposal is badly worded, because it would foreclose any independent presidential candidate from ever carrying Michigan in the electoral college, even if he or she received more popular votes than any other presidential candidate. Also, it would bar Michigan from passing the National Popular Vote Plan idea. It was introduced to forestall any expected bill that would change Michigan’s presidential elector selection process to either letting each U.S. House district choose its own elector, or else letting the electors be based on the proportion of the popular vote that each candidate received in Michigan. Thanks to an anonymous commenter for this news.
A state constitution provision is not binding on the legislature with respect to the manner the legislature direct for the appointment of its presidential electors.
Why would the legislature pass this resolution, if they can simply pass a statute providing for proportional allocation of presidential electors.
How does this amend their Constitution? Isn’t this what they already have? “all presidential electors in Michigan be those nominated by the party that placed first in the statewide vote, in presidential elections.” sounds like status quo winner take all.
That is the status quo, but putting it in the state constitution would, in my opinion, bind the legislature. Jim Riley, flesh out why you think a state constitution can’t have any effect. Thank you.
Doesn’t the US Constitution give the state legislatures specific plenary powers to do want they want with electoral votes and that overriding any prior action of any kind by a previous legislature that binds a future legislature at all, in any way?
#4, it’s not that simple. Some authorities say when a state constitution is amended, that amendment was part of the state legislature’s role also.
Article II, Section 1 says:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, …”
This is a direct grant of authority by the federal constitution to the State legislature, rather than the State.
If there were no federal constitution, there would be no President, and no reason for a State to appoint presidential electors. While it is the State that makes the appointment, it is the State legislature that decides how the appointment is made. Congressional authority is limited to setting the time of appointment, and the date when the presidential electors meet and cast their votes.
Article I, Section 4 gives similar authority with regard to manner of electing federal senators and representatives. It is somewhat different in that Congress may override the legislatures, and that the choice must be by popular election.
The SCOTUS has ruled that there is no authority for popular election of senators (prior to the 17th Amendment), nor for popular ratification of proposed constitutional amendments. In both those instances, the federal constitution has vested the authority in the legislatures as a specific group of persons, not acting in their legislative role. In the case of ratification of amendments to the constitution, Congress may direct an alternative group.
When a legislature prescribes the manner of electing senators and representatives; or directs the manner by which presidential electors are appointed, it is exercising its legislative powers, and the term “legislature” can be read “legislative process”. The SCOTUS has ruled that a governor’s veto is part of the legislative process, and also has ruled a popular veto (referendum) is part of the legislative process.
It is not known whether or not the initiative process is included in the the meaning of “legislature” in the federal constitution.
A State constitution prescribes how the government of State is constituted, for example whether the legislature is bicameral or unicameral, how the legislators are elected, who executive authority is vested in, how legislation is passed. A constitution may also proscribe a legislature from enacting legislation on certain subjects, such as an establishment of a state religion.
The US Constitution says that a legislature _may_ prescribe the manner by which presidential electors are appointed. This means that they can change that manner at will.
If they decide to use popular elections, then they have to comply with the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. But that does not mean that they have to be appointed based on popular elections, or that those elections can’t be by district, or proportional allocation (there might be a case made that equal protection under the 14th Amendment precludes at-large elections of presidential electors. The SCOTUS has hinted that political minorities are protected just like racial and ethnic minorities).
But if the Michigan constitution were to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors, it would preempt the authority of the Michigan legislature to do so.
Michigan does have provisions for a popular veto, so if the Michigan legislature were to switch to a district-based or proportional election method for appointment of presidential electors, there could a petition to force a referendum.
SCOTUS has said that State constitutions and State Electors are the same as the State legislatures for various purposes.
Art. I, Sec. 4 — election stuff for Congress.
Art. IV, Sec. 4 — Republican Form of Govt — i.e. voter petitions for State Const amdts and laws, etc. — going back to Oregon 1898.
See the Constitution Annotated for the cases.
The problem of course – the various gerrymander systems are EVIL and Corrupt — i.e. ANTI-Democracy oligarchs control.
Minority rule gerrymanders in the U.S.A. 24/7/365 —
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas (variable or semi-permanent) = 1/4 control
— MUCH Worse in the U.S.A. gerrymander Senate.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V — to END the DARK AGE gerrymander regimes.
Also note the mention of Prez Electors in 14th Amdt, Sec. 2.
#7 In which cases has the SCOTUS said that State Constitution and Voters are the same as the legislature with respect to the manner regulation for congressional elections?
‘Davis v. Hildebrant’ said that the voters may have a role in the legislative process similar to that of a governor. But that role was totally auxiliary to the legislature first passing the legislation that was later vetoed.
‘Hawke v Smith’ said that voters had no right to reject the ratification of a constitutional amendment, even though there was a provision in the Ohio constitution that purported to give them that right.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=GPO&browsePath=The+Constitution+of+the+United+States+of+America:+Analysis+and+Interpretation
Years of fun and torture of the SCOTUS *opinions* about A to Z stuff.
See the bottom – opinions OVER-RULED by later SCOTUS opinions — i.e. by later robot party hacks appointed by robot party hack Prezs and confirmed by the super robot party hacks in the gerrymander Senate.
2012 edition should be coming out shortly.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/285/355/case.html
Smiley v. Holm
Governor veto — process of law making – MN gerrymander district stuff in 1931-1932
— due in part to the corrupt EVIL omission of the gerrymander Congress to NOT reapportion USA Rep seats in 1921 after the 1920 census (i.e. major moving around due to 1914-1918 WW I — plus car biz, etc.)
— much more moving around in the booming 1920s – to CA, etc.
i.e. a LARGE number of States in 1932 had at large elections of all/many U.S.A. Reps.
— result the 1933-1934 FDR Donkey puppets during Great Depression I.
MAJOR minority rule gerrymander ROT ended only as late as 1964
— i.e. TOTAL USA Rep. gerrymanders in 1788-1962
— a mere 174 years – a mere 87 Congresses.
Current ROT since 1964 about a mere 25 percent indirect minority rule — 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4
Obviously the voters are DIRECTLY in the law making business when they enact/amend State Constitutions and State laws.
See the pending CA Prop 8 case in SCOTUS.
The bottom here is that the Dems want the procedure carved into the state constitution to stop a majority Republican legislature from tinkering with it. If it happens, expect a Supreme Court case on it.
#12 In Michigan, the Republicans hold the hammer (governor) and chisel (legislature). How do the members of the minority party expect to get it carved into stone?
#11 I said that the SCOTUS had ruled that a gubernatorial veto was part of the legislative process. It is true that I did not cite ‘Smiley v Holm’ by name.
It is not obvious to me that the voters are in the law-making business when they create a constitution.