Timeline for Does National Popular Vote Interstate Compact make allowances for states to leave after joining?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 8, 2020 at 18:27 | comment | added | Bobson | @reirab That's a good point. | |
| Jul 8, 2020 at 18:22 | comment | added | reirab | @Bobson Sure, they could try, but it would be very, very likely to fail, IMO. Especially in light of Article I, Section 10, paragraph 3, which explicitly bans states from entering into compacts with each other without the express consent of Congress in the first place. The NPVIC is already explicitly unconstitutional, it's just not clear that anyone would have standing to bring suit directly against it or what possible remedy the court would have if they did. | |
| Jul 8, 2020 at 18:20 | comment | added | Bobson | @reirab - I'm not going to even begin to guess how they'd rule on something like that, in the compressed timeframes involved. But it'd certainly be grounds for bringing the case and trying to force them to comply. | |
| Jul 8, 2020 at 18:14 | comment | added | reirab | @Bobson But only on the assumption that the Supreme Court would rule the requirement enforceable, which they probably wouldn't. | |
| Jul 8, 2020 at 18:11 | comment | added | Bobson | @reirab - The question probably would be better answered on Law, but I suspect that it would prove grounds for the other involved states to sue a state which withdrew and chose to ignore the six month period. Suits between states are one of the few things that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over, so a suit to invalidate the law which provided a different (non-compliant) way to allocate electors could have that part be overturned (thereby forcing the state to honor its obligation) and would have nowhere to be appealed. | |
| Jul 8, 2020 at 3:12 | comment | added | reirab | @SteveEstes Seems unlikely that it would be legally binding. Legislatures can generally repeal a law whenever they want. Only their own state Constitution (or the United States Constitution) would be able to set binding limits on that. A law saying the legislature can't pass a law can simply be repealed by the exact same legislature at will. Just like how Congress changes the debt ceiling whenever they want/need to. | |
| Jul 7, 2020 at 21:05 | comment | added | user5155 | @SteveEstes I as I posed in the question that a future legislature can in fact repeal the law proves that they are not being bound by a previous one. As Kevin has pointed out having a 6+ month time allowance for a new body to change the law seems pretty reasonable to me. I think it would actually work out to much more than that in practice, considering an off-year state election followed the very next year by a presidential election would be rare. | |
| Jul 7, 2020 at 18:45 | comment | added | Kevin | @SteveEstes: American state legislatures usually hold regularly-scheduled elections in November (on the same day as federal elections, though sometimes in odd-numbered years when no federal elections are regularly scheduled), and the winners take office in or before January-ish. The legislature in July would (probably, usually) be the same body as the legislature in November (barring an out-of-cycle special election). | |
| Jul 7, 2020 at 16:40 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | moved from User.Id=5155 by developer User.Id=43069 | |
| Jul 7, 2020 at 15:58 | comment | added | Steve Estes | are there any qualified opinions on whether this time limit on withdrawing violates the principle that one legislature may not bind a future legislature, that the legislature is always free to make new superseding laws? | |
| Jul 7, 2020 at 15:34 | history | answered | CDJB♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |