| > The problem is that this agreement is expressly unconstitutional I would disagree with that phrasing, and your final paragraph contradicts that statement. There is nothing unconstitutional about states entering into compacts. They merely require congressional consent to do so as the language of Article 1 Section 10 makes clear. Additionally, even without congressional consent the supreme court has ruled multiple times since the late 1800s that as long as an a compact is not: > "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon. . . . the just supremacy of the United States" Then congressional consent is not required. [1][2][3] The argument then is whether the NPVIC violates that rule and encroaches on federal supremacy or grants additional power to the states. However, the power in question here relates to how states appoint electors. This is a power explicitly granted to the states under article 2 section 1 clause 2 [4]: > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors Therefore, in my opinion, any compact regarding the power to select electors does not pass the tests laid out by previous case law, and the compact does not require congressional approval. Of course our opinions don't count, only the supreme courts opinion matters, but there is no indication from any case law that this compact is "explicitly unconstitutional" or "in a certain way illegal". If anything it is borderline, but supported by current caselaw. The supreme court will most likely take up any suit involving the compact for clarification, but they would need a novel justification for deciding that states exercising a power explicitly granted to the states somehow increases the power of states. Additionally, all of this is entirely moot if congress grants approval. For further reading I would look at the NPVIC's own FAQ which has detailed citations and caselaw supporting their argument as well as detailing counter arguments [5]. For an independent review of interstate compact caselaw see [1], [6], or [7]. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Interstate_compact [2] https://ballotpedia.org/Virginia_v._Tennessee_(1893) [3] https://ballotpedia.org/New_Hampshire_v._Maine_(1976) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... [5] https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.16#myth_9.16.5 [6] https://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/ncic/caselaw.pdf [7]
https://ballotpedia.org/Congressional_consent |