Blog

Most multi-lateral interstate compacts have their own process, often a commission, to ensure uniform interpretation among members and to resolve disputes. The National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPV) has nothing like this. Lobbyists for NPV always give the same answer: Judges will figure it out.

The flaws in NPV’s answer are both practical and, in the most profound sense, political.

As a practical matter, there are many courts and many judges. And because NPV claims it can take effect without the consent of Congress, its provisions could remain issues of state law subject only to state courts. (Compacts ratified by Congress are treated as both state and federal law.) Even for cases that reach federal courts (including any lawsuits between states), there is no guarantee of achieving uniformities quickly or ever. 

Only the Supreme Court of the United States can settle the meaning of a law nationwide. Reaching that court usually takes years, and it declines to hear most cases. If NPV took effect, the most likely scenario would be festering legal disagreements in state courts and lower federal courts, with resolution only when the results of an election might hang on the outcome. 

This brings us to the political challenge of NPV. It is unhealthy to put judges in the position of deciding elections—for the courts themselves and for the electoral process and the voters. As I have written before, questions about delayed vote totals, unusual ways of reporting results, or competing results caused by ranked-choice voting or other alternative election methods could create uncertainty about the results under the NPV compact. The answer of NPV lobbyists that courts can figure it all out is a dangerous punt.