Blog
Defending the Electoral College and the Constitution since 2009
California already has more electoral votes than any other state, due to the size of its population. And it’s no secret that California would get far more power from the National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPV). In fact, the NPV campaign is based in California and funded mostly by Californians. Yet the Golden State might get even more power than it first appears.
Legislators in Sacramento passed NPV bills in 2006, 2007, and 2012. The first two were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the last was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. For some Democrats, the math seems simple: more power for California can only help them win, at least in the short run. (In the long run, it would radically change coalition politics and increase the likelihood of independent billionaire candidates—both of which would transform politics, probably not for the better.)
The sheer size of California, however, means it would have unique power to manipulate the compact. One way it could do this would be by changing election rules. This could, as I recently wrote, include lowering the voting age. On the other hand, as my colleague explained, other states might respond with something called Demeny voting.
But the most obvious way California could control the NPV compact would be by deciding whether it would be in effect or not for a particular election. The compact takes effect if joined by states that together have at least 270 electoral votes. (By its terms, it claims not to require the consent of Congress—this is just one of the constitutional problems with NPV.) Until the next census, California is providing 54 of those votes. That means that if the NPV compact was in effect with states controlling between 270 and 323 electoral votes, California could unilaterally deactivate it.
The compact does have a provision that claims to limit a state’s power to withdraw, saying that it cannot take effect within 6 months of the end of a presidential term (in other words, July 20th in a presidential election year). But like all provisions of law, there are questions. Would a judge enforce it? Or would a California state judge gladly strike down this part of the compact—or the whole compact—if it seemed likely to benefit California or its dominant political party?
Even if the provision was enforced, it is remarkable to consider that the California legislature would, on its own, have the power in each presidential campaign year to decide for all Americans which set of rules would govern presidential elections. That would be even more radical than a party swapping candidates on, say, July 21st in an election year.
There are many ways to manipulate the National Popular Vote interstate compact, should it ever take effect. Don’t take my word for it—the law professors who came up with the concept for NPV have made the same point about the compact as presently drafted. Yet two manipulations stand out as especially straightforward, and enticing, especially for a big state like California.
For all of American history, elections have been conducted within individual states—never across state lines. This means that whether or not California allows minor children to vote only affects the outcome of California elections—unless NPV takes effect.
CA: 1,545,012
15-17 YO males: 794,712, females: 750,300 (2022 Census Bureau estimates)
NY: 694,065
Males: 355,981, females: 338,084
Data at https://censusreporter.org/