Update - July 14, 2008

The bill number has been changed. The new number is H.4952.

On Wednesday, July 9, 2008 the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill by 116 - 37. (View the roll call here.) The GOAL legislative agent spent a considerable amount of time in the State House on Wednesday asking questions about the bill. Very few of the questions were answered and that led to even greater concern about the bill. A further concern is the list of states that have passed this bill into law. New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois & Hawaii along with potentially Massachusetts creates a who's who list of gun control states. Below are a few points worth discussing.

1. If the people of this nation wish to completely change how we elect our President then why are we not going through the process of changing the Constitution?

2. It is clear from reading the Constitution that it was always the intention that the states were to elect the President, not the people at large. (12th Amendment) If we wish to change this process than we should do so as a nation, not as a collection of states that are still bitter over the 2000 election.

3. The mantra that "every vote should count" is merely meant to stir up uneducated support for this bill. Currently every vote does count in determining how our individual states apportion their Electoral College Delegates.

4. The fact that the law would not take effect until enough states have passed the law to control the majority of the combined states' Electoral College Votes is disturbing at best. If these individual states truly believe that the best way to elect the President is by mandating the Electoral votes are based on a national popular vote, why are they waiting until they control the process before they start doing it?

5. There is no sunset clause in the legislation. This means that as states individually pass this bill and wait for others to do so, it could take decades or more before it officially takes effect.

6. We could virtually have a divided nation in how we elect our President if this is allowed to proceed. A small group of states don't like the current system and are evading the Constitutional process could easily be seen as attempting to do away with the states as we know them and creating a new one government nation. In other words, a cold civil war of sorts.

7. One major concern is how the "national popular vote" will be tabulated. For example: Let us say New Hampshire chooses not to be part of this new group and conducts their Electoral votes as they have always done. Let us then say that their state election process ends up supporting candidate "A". Now this new group also wants to count the New Hampshire votes as part of a new national popular vote. In this instance when the votes for candidate "B" are added to the national totals, candidate "B" could be the winner nation wide and the the group would support "B" as a whole. In this case, New Hampshire votes are technically being counted twice with the outcome being very different.

8. In referring to #7 above, what authority does this new group have to reach outside their states and count a non-member state's votes? One could easily view this as one state's citizens being forced to take part in an effort that they may have voted against.

9. What if this new group attempted to demand a recount that would affect who the group would support, but the areas where they suspected a problem were within a non-member state that voted not to be part of the new process? Most likely a federal judge would be powerless to demand such action since there was no Constitutional change and the member states would not have any authority over non-member states, what then?

_______________________________________________________________________

Massachusetts Presidential Voting System Could Be Changed!!!!

The Massachusetts House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a bill Wednesday, July 9, 2008 that would change the way Presidents are elected. If passed, H.678 "An Act Relative To The Agreement Among States To Elect The President By National Popular Vote" would place Massachusetts into a group of states that would elect the President and Vice President via a popular vote system. While this is not an obvious Second Amendment bill, it could have a serious impact as it could change who will be appointing future Supreme Court Justices.

Currently the Presidential elections are determined by the individual states through the Electoral College system. This new proposal would change the system to have a mix of state votes and  popular votes. We are told that the key to this bill is that it will only take affect when enough states have passed the legislation to control the majority of the Electoral votes. We are told that there is a scenario where 13 key states could effectively pass this bill and then take over the entire Presidential election system. This would leave 37 states out of the election process.

As we understand the bill, if Massachusetts votes to become one of the popular vote member states, our Electoral College members will be instructed to vote for the Presidential candidate that has received the greatest combined popular votes.

For example (as we understand the legislation): Let's say that of the New England states, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut were to become part of this new popular vote group. Once the presidential election takes place these three states would combine the votes from all three states to determine who they would all vote for. The remaining New England states, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont would cast their Electoral votes separately as they do now.

What would be changed and where is the danger? Let's say that using the example above, the three member states of MA, RI, and CT belonged to this new popular vote group. (Using easy numbers) MA had 100,000 votes for a candidate "A" 50,000 votes for candidate "B", RI had 20,000 for "A" and 30,000 for "B" and CT had 40,000 for "A" and 50,000 for "B".

Under the new proposed rules, all three states would be forced to give their votes to candidate "A" even though candidate "B" won the popular vote in two out of three states. Let us also use for this example that three non-group states of ME, NH and VT all separately supported candidate "B" under the current Electoral rules.

Under the current Electoral rules Candidate "A" would receive 12 Electoral votes and candidate "B" would receive 22 Electoral votes. Under the proposed changes using our scenario, candidate "A" would receive 23 Electoral votes and Candidate "B" would receive 11 Electoral votes. Thus the proposed system would drastically change the outcome of the elections.

While GOAL respects that we may have members that support a popular vote system, this proposal would create a mongrel election system, meaning some states would use the current Electoral system and others would be using the new group popular vote system. The nation is already deeply divided politically and this new proposal would divide our nation even further by changing and confusing the way we elect out President. If we thought there were court battles over the Bush/Gore election, imagine what would take place in the courts if different states are using the the Electoral system differently. It could be a legal nightmare.

GOAL urges our members to contact their legislators and urge them to slow down this drastic change until all of the facts are clearly presented to the people at large. This proposal represents an enormously complicated and far reaching change to our national political system that must be approached cautiously and with the full consent of the people.

Electoral Votes per state (New England).

To learn more about the Electoral College:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

_________________________________________________________

H.678 An Act relative to the agreement among states to elect the President by national popular vote.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.  The General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after chapter __, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, the following chapter: -

Chapter ___.

Agreement Among The State To Elect The President Of The United States By National Popular Vote

SECTION 2. Membership

Any State of the United States and the District of Columbia may become a member of this agreement by enacting this agreement.

SECTION 3. Right of the People in Member States to Vote for President and Vice President

Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for the President and Vice President of the United States.

SECTION 4. Manner of Appointing Presidential Electors in Member States

Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate.  The chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the “national popular vote winner.”

The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.

At least six days before the day fixed by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, each member state shall make a final determination of the number of popular votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and shall communicate an official statement of such determination within 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member state. 

The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress.

In event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment of the elector slate nominated in association with the presidential slate receiving the largest number of popular votes within that official’s own state.

If, for any reason, the number of presidential electors nominated in a member state in association with the national popular winner is less than or greater than that state’s number of electoral votes, the presidential candidate on the presidential slate that has been designated as the national popular vote winner shall the power to nominate the presidential electors for that state and that state’s presidential elector certifying official shall certify the appointment of such nominees.  The chief election official of each member state shall immediately release to the public all vote counts or statement s of votes as they are determined or obtained.

This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes

SECTION 5.  Other Provisions

This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state.

Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a Presidential or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.

The chief executive of each member state shall promptly notify the chief executive of all other states of when this agreement has been enacted and has taken effect in that official’s state, when the state has withdrawn from this agreement, and when this agreement take effect generally.

 This agreement shall terminate if the electoral college is abolished. 

If any provision of this agreement is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected.

SECTION 6.  Definitions

For the purposes of this agreement,

“chief executive” shall mean the Governor of a state of the United States or the Mayor of the District of Columbia;

“elector slate” shall mean a slate of candidates who have been nominated in a state for the position of presidential elector in association with a presidential slate;

“chief election official” shall mean the state official or body that is authorized to certify the total number of popular votes for each president slate;

“presidential elector” shall mean an elector for the President and Vice President of the United States;

“presidential elector certifying official” shall mean the state official or body that is authorized to certify the appointment of the state’s presidential electors;

“presidential slate” shall mean a slate of two persons, the  first of whom has been nominated as a candidate for the President of the United States and the second of whom has been nominated as a candidate for Vice President of the United States, or any legal successors to such persons, regardless of whether both names appear on the ballot presented to the voter in a particular state;

“state” shall mean a State of the United States and the District of Columbia; and

“statewide popular election” shall mean a general election in which votes are cast for presidential slates by individual voters and counted on a statewide basis.