{ "id": "R43823", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43823", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 606778, "date": "2019-10-28", "retrieved": "2019-10-29T22:17:42.598105", "title": "The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact", "summary": "The National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative proposes an agreement among the states, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution\u2019s grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1 to appoint presidential electors \u201cin such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.... \u201d Any state that joins the NPV compact pledges that if the compact comes into effect, its legislature will award all the state\u2019s electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of who wins in that particular state. The compact would, however, come into effect only if its success has been assured; that is, only if states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) join the compact.\nAt present, 15 states and the District of Columbia, jointly accounting for 196 electoral votes, have joined the compact. Adoption of the compact in the states has been uneven: after approval by 8 states and the District of Columbia between 2007 and 2011, the pace slowed, but since 2018, the compact has regained momentum as 5 additional states with 31 electoral votes joined. As of October 2019, NPV legislation was pending in 2 states with a total of 25 electoral votes where the legislature was in session. In 5 other states with 45 votes, NPV remained \u201clive\u201d and eligible to be \u201ccarried over\u201d for consideration when their legislatures reconvene for their 2020 session.\nOpposition has emerged in some states. In Colorado opponents succeeded in placing a measure on the ballot in 2020 as a referendum that would repeal that state\u2019s membership in the NPV. In 6 other states\u2014Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington\u2014measures to repeal NPV legislation have been introduced in state legislatures, but to date, none of these has been successful. \nThe NPV initiative emerged following the presidential election of 2000, in which one ticket gained an electoral vote majority, winning the presidency, but received fewer popular votes than its opponents. NPV grew out of subsequent discussions among scholars and activists about how to avoid similar outcomes in the future and to achieve direct popular election.\nNPV proponents claim it would guarantee that (1) the presidential candidates who win the most popular votes nationwide will always win the presidency; (2) NPV would end the alleged inequities of the general ticket/winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes; and (3) candidates would extend their focus beyond winning the \u201cbattleground states,\u201d campaigning more widely and devoting greater attention to issues of concern to other parts of the country. They further assert that NPV would accomplish this while avoiding the exacting standards set for amendments by Article V of the Constitution. NPV opponents argue that (1) it would undermine the authority of states under the Constitution and the Founders\u2019 intention that presidential elections should be both national and federal contests; (2) it is an admitted \u201cend run\u201d around the Constitution that would circumvent the amendment process; and (3) it might actually lead to more disputed presidential elections and politically contentious state recounts.\nThe NPV has also been debated on legal grounds. Some observers maintain that it must be approved by Congress, because it is an interstate compact that would affect key provisions of constitutional presidential election procedures. NPV Inc., the organization managing the initiative\u2019s advocacy campaign, responds that congressional approval is not necessary because NPV concerns the appointment of electors, a subject that falls within state constitutional authority, and that the Supreme Court has previously rejected arguments that similar compacts would impair the rights of nonmember states. Other critics claim that NPV might violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voter influence and avoiding the recently invalidated preclearance requirement for election procedure changes in covered jurisdictions. NPV Inc. counters by claiming that the compact is \u201centirely consistent with the goal of the Voting Rights Act.\u201d\nThis report monitors the NPV\u2019s progress in the states and will identify and analyze further developments as warranted.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43823", "sha1": "d3a525c3b9002b0b5effeecbef18888fcb580ae0", "filename": "files/20191028_R43823_d3a525c3b9002b0b5effeecbef18888fcb580ae0.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43823", "sha1": "4663c27a637c2a7cbc8c67ad800efb7758f97878", "filename": "files/20191028_R43823_4663c27a637c2a7cbc8c67ad800efb7758f97878.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4833, "name": "Census, Redistricting, Voting, & Elections" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 597996, "date": "2019-05-09", "retrieved": "2019-05-09T22:11:52.720306", "title": "The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact", "summary": "The National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative proposes an agreement among the states, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution\u2019s grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1 to appoint presidential electors \u201cin such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.... \u201d Any state that joins the NPV compact pledges that if the compact comes into effect, its legislature will award all the state\u2019s electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of who wins in that particular state. The compact would, however, come into effect only if its success has been assured; that is, only if states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) join the compact.\nBy early May 2019, 14 states and the District of Columbia had joined the compact. After early momentum\u2014eight states and the District of Columbia joined the NPV Compact between 2007 and 2011\u2014the pace of state accessions slowed through 2018. Since then, four additional states joined, bringing the total number of electoral votes controlled by NPV member states to 189. During the same period, legislation to join the compact had been introduced during the current session in at least one chamber of the legislature in 14 additional states that control an additional 150 electors. \nThe NPV initiative emerged following the presidential election of 2000, in which one ticket gained an electoral vote majority, winning the presidency, but received fewer popular votes than its opponents. NPV grew out of subsequent discussions among scholars and activists about how to avoid similar outcomes in the future and to achieve direct popular election.\nProponents of NPV assert that it would guarantee the presidential candidates who win the most popular votes nationwide will always win the presidency; that it would end the inequities of the general ticket/winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes; and that candidates would extend their focus beyond winning the \u201cbattleground states,\u201d campaigning more widely and devoting greater attention to issues of concern to other parts of the country. They further assert that NPV would accomplish this while avoiding the exacting standards set for the proposal and ratification of constitutional amendments. Opponents argue that NPV would undermine the authority of states under the Constitution and the Founders\u2019 intention that presidential elections should be both national and federal contests; that it is an admitted \u201cend run\u201d around the Constitution that would circumvent the amendment process; and that it might actually lead to more disputed presidential elections characterized by politically contentious state recounts.\nThe NPV has also been debated on legal grounds. Some observers maintain that it must be approved by Congress, because it is an interstate compact that would affect key provisions of constitutional presidential election procedures. NPV Inc., the organization managing the initiative\u2019s advocacy campaign, responds that congressional approval is not necessary because NPV concerns the appointment of electors, a subject that falls within state constitutional authority, and that the Supreme Court has previously rejected arguments that similar compacts would impair the rights of nonmember states. Other critics claim that NPV might violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voter influence and avoiding the recently invalidated preclearance requirement for election procedure changes in covered jurisdictions. In response, NPV Inc. has asserted that the compact is \u201centirely consistent with the goal of the Voting Rights Act.\u201d\nThis report monitors the NPV\u2019s progress in the states and will identify and analyze further developments as warranted.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43823", "sha1": "2650ace09bb91e83cd2947a5f834b478607b9a69", "filename": "files/20190509_R43823_2650ace09bb91e83cd2947a5f834b478607b9a69.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43823", "sha1": "531d6cbd9db6296e521bc5261e1e0fe9497a7308", "filename": "files/20190509_R43823_531d6cbd9db6296e521bc5261e1e0fe9497a7308.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4833, "name": "Census, Redistricting, Voting, & Elections" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 586892, "date": "2018-10-25", "retrieved": "2019-04-18T13:31:44.245885", "title": "The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact", "summary": "The National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative proposes an agreement among the states, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution\u2019s grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1 to appoint presidential electors \u201cin such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....\u201d Any state that joins the NPV compact pledges to award all its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of who wins in that particular state. The number of electoral votes won by the national popular vote winners would depend on the number of electoral votes controlled by NPV member states. The compact would, however, come into effect only if its success has been assured; that is, only if states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) join the compact. Recent action by the Connecticut legislature to join the compact has generated renewed interest in the NPV initiative. At the time of this writing, 11 states and the District of Columbia, which jointly control 172 electoral votes, have joined the compact.\nThe NPV initiative emerged following the presidential election of 2000, in which one ticket gained an electoral vote majority, winning the presidency, but received fewer popular votes than its opponents. NPV grew out of subsequent discussions among scholars and activists about how to avoid similar outcomes in the future and to achieve direct popular election.\nProponents of NPV assert that it would guarantee the presidential candidates who win the most popular votes nationwide will always win the presidency; that it would end the inequities of the general ticket/winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes; and that candidates would extend their focus beyond winning the \u201cbattleground states,\u201d campaigning more widely and devoting greater attention to issues of concern to other parts of the country. They further assert that NPV would accomplish this while avoiding the exacting standards set for the proposal and ratification of constitutional amendments. Opponents argue that NPV would undermine the authority of states under the Constitution and the Founders\u2019 intention that presidential elections should be both national and federal contests; that it is an admitted \u201cend run\u201d around the Constitution that would circumvent the amendment process; and that it might actually lead to more disputed presidential elections characterized by politically contentious state recounts.\nThe NPV has also been debated on legal grounds. Some observers maintain that it must be approved by Congress, because it is an interstate compact that would affect key provisions of constitutional presidential election procedures. NPV Inc., the organization managing the initiative\u2019s advocacy campaign, responds that congressional approval is not necessary because NPV concerns the appointment of electors, a subject that falls within state constitutional authority, and that the Supreme Court has previously rejected arguments that similar compacts would impair the rights of nonmember states. Other critics claim that NPV might violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voter influence and avoiding the recently invalidated preclearance requirement for election procedure changes in covered jurisdictions. In response, NPV Inc. has asserted that the compact is \u201centirely consistent with the goal of the Voting Rights Act.\u201d\nThis report monitors the NPV\u2019s progress in the states and will identify and analyze further developments as warranted.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43823", "sha1": "d08217e39534c7e9a08a6cd78d7d3a0741eae765", "filename": "files/20181025_R43823_d08217e39534c7e9a08a6cd78d7d3a0741eae765.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43823", "sha1": "b8a8049be4eff1c5f7b098da39f9871c736af2ea", "filename": "files/20181025_R43823_b8a8049be4eff1c5f7b098da39f9871c736af2ea.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4833, "name": "Census, Redistricting, Voting, & Elections" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 436313, "date": "2014-12-12", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:49:37.268486", "title": "The National Popular Vote Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact", "summary": "The National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative proposes an agreement among the states, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution\u2019s grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1, to appoint presidential electors \u201cin such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.... \u201d Any state that joins the NPV compact pledges to award all its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of who wins in that particular state. The number of electoral votes won by the national popular vote winners would depend on the number of electoral votes controlled by NPV member states. The compact would, however, come into effect only if its success has been assured; that is, only if states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) join the compact. Recent action by the New York legislature to join the compact has generated renewed interest in the NPV initiative. At the time of this writing, 10 states and the District of Columbia, which jointly control 165 electoral votes, have joined the compact.\nThe National Popular Vote initiative emerged following the presidential election of 2000, in which one ticket gained an electoral vote majority, winning the presidency, but received fewer popular votes than its opponents. NPV grew out of subsequent discussions among scholars and activists about how to avoid similar outcomes in the future and to achieve direct popular election.\nProponents of NPV assert that it would guarantee the presidential candidates who win the most popular votes nationwide will always win the presidency; that it would end the inequities of the general ticket/winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes; and that candidates would extend their focus beyond winning the \u201cbattleground states,\u201d campaigning more widely and devoting greater attention to issues of concern to other parts of the country. They further assert that NPV would accomplish this while avoiding the exacting standards set for the proposal and ratification of constitutional amendments. Opponents argue that NPV would undermine the authority of states under the Constitution and the Founders\u2019 intention that presidential elections should be both national and federal contests; that it is an admitted \u201cend run\u201d around the Constitution which would circumvent the amendment process; and that it might actually lead to more disputed presidential elections characterized by politically contentious state recounts.\nThe NPV has also been debated on constitutional and legal grounds. Some observers maintain that it must be approved by Congress, because it is an interstate compact that would affect key provisions of constitutional presidential election procedures. NPV Inc., the organization managing the initiative\u2019s advocacy campaign, responds that congressional approval is not necessary because NPV deals with the appointment of electors, a subject that falls within state constitutional authority, and that the Supreme Court has previously rejected arguments that similar compacts would impair the rights of nonmember states. Other critics claim that NPV might violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voter influence and avoiding the recently invalidated preclearance requirement for election procedures changes in covered jurisdictions. In response, NPV, Inc. has asserted that the compact is \u201centirely consistent with the goal of the Voting Rights Act.\u201d\nThis report monitors the NPV\u2019s progress in the states and will identify and provide analysis of further developments as warranted.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43823", "sha1": "59f70ecbd14c6cb7102ad0e1e8156f36bbded331", "filename": "files/20141212_R43823_59f70ecbd14c6cb7102ad0e1e8156f36bbded331.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43823", "sha1": "4df94a11f0b45b91348c622a380b03da934c92a3", "filename": "files/20141212_R43823_4df94a11f0b45b91348c622a380b03da934c92a3.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3427, "name": "Voting and Elections" } ] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions" ] }