![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Blocking Electoral Calvinball
Sep. 13th, 2007 01:34 pmOne event which has the potential to have a huge impact on the 2008 Presidential election is a California ballot initiative being pushed by Republican front groups to change the way that California's electoral college votes are allocated. Like most other states, California currently awards all of its electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the state. Under the ballot initiative, California would award its votes more proportionately--basically, most of the electors would be awarded proportionately and then the statewide winner would receive two bonus electors. This would have the net effect of (somewhere in the range of) 20 or so electors from the Democratic candidate to the Republican.
There are many, many reasons to think this is a really bad idea--most notably that it tremendously increases the chances that the candidate who loses California wins the presidency. (A more detailed discussion can be found in this column from Jamison Foser, which likens the situation to Calvinball, and also covers the inadequacy of press coverage of the issues involved.)
However, there's another issue: the referendum might be actually unconstitutional on its face. I refer to Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, a section which has not been amended:
The "originalists" and "strict constructionists" who populate the right wing of American political discourse called upon this clause in the argument before the Supreme Court which decided Bush v. Gore and, with it, the 2000 election. They--by which I mean current Solicitor General Ted Olsen and his vile ilk--claimed that judicial review violated Article II. If judicial review of state law is not "in such Manner as the Legislature may direct", then certainly a popular vote ballot can't be considered legislative.
It's something to consider.
There are many, many reasons to think this is a really bad idea--most notably that it tremendously increases the chances that the candidate who loses California wins the presidency. (A more detailed discussion can be found in this column from Jamison Foser, which likens the situation to Calvinball, and also covers the inadequacy of press coverage of the issues involved.)
However, there's another issue: the referendum might be actually unconstitutional on its face. I refer to Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, a section which has not been amended:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . . (emphasis added).
The "originalists" and "strict constructionists" who populate the right wing of American political discourse called upon this clause in the argument before the Supreme Court which decided Bush v. Gore and, with it, the 2000 election. They--by which I mean current Solicitor General Ted Olsen and his vile ilk--claimed that judicial review violated Article II. If judicial review of state law is not "in such Manner as the Legislature may direct", then certainly a popular vote ballot can't be considered legislative.
It's something to consider.
