re: Virginia Governor Abigail signs bill into law giving all electoral college votes to winner

quote:

---

How are they violating the Constitution with this move? Exactly what part of the Constitution is being violated?

---

Compact clause specifically forbids collusion with other states. Having an entire state's vote potentially void and then awarded to the will of the other states that voted one way would be an example of violating the interstate commerce clause.

This has been tried before and has been overturned every single time.

ETA: Correction, compact clause, not commerce clause.

quote:

---

If this was even remotely legal it would have happened in 2016.

---

Nope.

It's legal.

quote:

---

This has been tried before and has been overturned every single time.

---

Nope.

Virginia v Tennessee, 1893.

The Court said congressional approval is only needed for compacts that increase the political power of states and could interfere with federal supremacy.

If not, states can do it without Congressional approval.

There will likely be an argument, but in order for the Court to rule against the compact they would have to show that it increased state power relative to federal power, and the relevant precedents would be against that.

For example, in 2020 SCOTUS upheld the state legislature's power to compel delegates to cast their vote based on any criteria the state legislature chose.

Given that they upheld the state's power in that circumstance, it's difficult to see how they can then turn around 6-7 years later and argue that state legislatures effectively DON'T have sole discretion on how delegates cast votes.

Plus, none of this matters in the long term. The next time we have a Democratic Congress (which could be real soon) and the WH they will simply approve it and the court won't even be necessary.

quote:

---

Ironically would have resulted in VA going red last election.

---

Well, and that's the thing.

The tribal populists are knee jerking their responses on this...leftist populists are all for it b/c the Democrats are the ones pushing for it and the rightist populists are dead set against it for the same reason.

But I'm not sure the Democrats are going to find it as much to their liking as they think they will, for a few reasons. I don't think they've thought it through.

I think it's a huge risk for them that they are just rushing headlong into.

quote:

---

Pretty sure she needs a constitutional amendment to do this

---

Why?

What part of the Constitution would need to be amended?

quote:

---

While the Compact Clause is the most direct attack, critics sometimes combine it with:

Article II arguments that a state cannot constitutionally appoint electors based primarily on out-of-state votes (historical practice and Framers’ intent supposedly limit this).
Guarantee Clause (Article IV) claims that it undermines republican government.
Broader federalism/policy arguments that this is an unconstitutional “bypass” of the amendment process.

---

Article 2 of the constitution:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

The argument:

quote:

---

Critics (notably law professor Norman R. Williams in his 2012 BYU Law Review article “Why the National Popular Vote Compact Is Unconstitutional,” among others) contend that while the text grants state legislatures broad (“plenary”) authority to choose the manner of appointing electors, that power is not unlimited and must be read in light of:

Framers’ intent and the structure of Article II: The Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected a direct national popular election for president. Instead, the Framers created the Electoral College as a compromise that preserved a federalist system—giving states (and especially smaller states) a meaningful role, with electors chosen in a way that reflected the sentiments and political character of each individual state. The process was designed to prevent large states or regional combinations from dominating through sheer population numbers. Appointing electors based on a national tally (i.e., giving decisive weight to out-of-state votes) is said to undermine this design by effectively turning the state’s electoral votes into a rubber stamp for the national popular vote winner, rather than a reflection of the state’s own people or political process.

Historical practice as evidence of original understanding: From ratification through the early decades of the republic (and ever since), no state has ever appointed its electors based primarily on votes cast by people outside its borders. States have used various methods—legislative appointment, statewide popular vote, district-based voting, etc.—but all have tied the choice, directly or indirectly, to the preferences of that state’s own citizens (or its legislature acting on their behalf). Uniform historical practice is often treated as strong evidence of constitutional meaning. Critics argue this consistent pattern shows that the “manner” contemplated by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 is limited to methods rooted in the state’s own electorate, not a national one. Extending it to out-of-state votes exceeds the delegated power.

In short, the argument is that while a state could (for example) let its legislature pick electors directly, or hold a statewide vote, or even use congressional districts, it cannot constitutionally delegate the substantive decision of who its electors support to the aggregate votes of non-residents across the country. Doing so allegedly transforms the state’s role in the Electoral College into something the Framers never authorized and deliberately avoided.

---

quote:

---

As of April 2026, the NPVIC has not triggered (it needs 270 electoral votes committed). Virginia’s recent entry has increased momentum but left it short. If it ever reaches the threshold, lawsuits from non-compact states, candidates, or voters are widely expected, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. Outcomes would turn heavily on how the Court applies U.S. Steel and related cases to this unique context—particularly whether altering presidential election mechanics this way implicates “federal supremacy” or the horizontal balance among states.
In summary, Compact Clause challenges portray the NPVIC as a coordinated effort by some states to rewrite a fundamental national election rule without the supermajority consensus the Constitution demands for structural change. Proponents view it as a lawful exercise of each state’s independent Article II authority, with coordination not rising to the level of a forbidden compact. The debate remains unresolved by the courts and centers on deep questions of federalism and constitutional design.

---

quote:

---

Compact clause specifically forbids collusion with other states.

---

See the court's ruling on that a few posts up from this one.

quote:

---

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The Compact Clause prohibits states from entering into any Agreement or Compact with another State or with a foreign government without the consent of Congress. Whereas other provisions in Article I, Section 10 categorically deny states certain powers, the Compact Clause allows states to retain what the Supreme Court has described as the sovereign right to make agreements and compacts, provided Congress consents.

---

See the court's ruling on that a few posts up from this one.

quote:

---

BugAC

---

That analysis was from 2012.

Before Chiafalo v. Washington.

From AI:

quote:

---

What the case held

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled:

?? States can require presidential electors to vote for the candidate they’re pledged to—and can punish or replace “faithless electors.”

?? The key reasoning

The Court said:

The Constitution gives states broad power to appoint electors (Article II)
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from binding electors to the popular vote winner

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion, emphasizing:

Historically, electors were expected to reflect the will of voters
States have long regulated electors
?? What this changed (or clarified)

Before this case, it wasn’t fully settled whether states could enforce elector pledges.

After Chiafalo:

? States can penalize faithless electors (e.g., fines)
? States can remove and replace them
? Electors do not have a constitutional right to vote independently
?? Related case

Decided the same day:

Colorado Department of State v. Baca
? Reinforced the same principle (states can remove electors)
?? Bottom line

?? States have full authority to bind electors to their chosen candidate
?? This strengthens the idea that electors are agents of the state, not free actors

---

The one holding that congressional approval isn't needed unless it erodes federal power in the vertical balance of power?

Or the one where it held that it might need congressional approval if it changes the horizontal balance of power between state governments?

Either way, it'll be months, if not years, of legal arguing and filing. And then it'll be interesting to see if the Supreme Court would sanction such a tidal change in the electoral system.

I doubt Chief Justice Roberts, with his predilection for the status quo and not rocking the boat, would go along with it and the current Court makeup makes it unlikely.