Blog

The National Popular Vote campaign did a face plant this year in Nevada. After passing two years ago, it needed to pass again this year in order to go before voters next year—that is the process to amend the Nevada Constitution. Instead, it died without even a hearing.

NPV is an interstate compact, which is typically joined by passing a simple state statute. (I can’t find any example of a compact being put in a state constitution.) The trouble for NPV was that Nevada governors—both the previous Democrat and current Republican—oppose giving other states control over their state’s electoral votes. Thus NPV supporters opted for an amendment, which cannot be vetoed by the governor.

So why, after winning passage two years ago, did NPV fail this year? I believe there are two reasons.

The most important reason is that legislators began considering the details of the NPV plan—the actual text of the law and its implications. Consider that the NPV interstate compact:

1. Has no process to coordinate state enforcement, which is common to other interstate compacts;
2. Has no provisions related to recounts or election contests;
3. Has no majority requirement, or minimum plurality requirement, unlike other direct election proposals;
4. Relies on cooperation from states not in the compact and that may be hostile to the compact scheme; and
5. Is likely unconstitutional.

Whatever anyone thinks of the Electoral College (and it has many benefits), the NPV interstate compact is not a viable reform. Once legislators began to consider the details, support began to erode.

The second reason, I believe, is the drubbing taken by a different group of reformers last year. A few fabulously wealthy individuals bankrolled ballot measures designed to push ranked-choice voting into Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon. They spent over $100 million and lost everywhere except DC.

The claims made by RCV backers are similar to those made by NPV lobbyists. Somehow, everybody’s vote becomes more meaningful and we’ll all feel warm fuzzies about election results. Voters in red, purple, and blue states didn’t buy it last year. I think the NPV campaign realized that no matter how much money they pumped in, they might still lose a vote of the people in Nevada in 2026.

The upshot of all this is that NPV’s failure is a proof of concept for Nevada’s constitutional amendment process. States that make it easy to amend their constitutions simply devalue their fundamental law. A multi-step democratic process, especially one stretched over several years, makes debate less about reacting to an issue of the day and more about the substance of the proposal. It improves deliberation and emphasizes the seriousness that ought to attend to constitutional change. Or to electing a president. After all, the Electoral College is also a multi-step democratic process—one that has served our nation well.