It's interesting that you bring up ratification, because it undermines your expressed sentiment. Amendments are just as constitutional as the Constitution itself. And that process was thoughtfully included for the express purpose of changing course as the rational need developed and the political will manifested.
Of course, in this case, ratification is entirely beside the point. This is not an effort to amend the Constitution. It is not an effort to eliminate the Electoral College. It is an effort to utilize the College in a manner which serves the participating states.
I'm curious to know under what grounds you would expect the Court to overturn the compact. I think you'd find that the Court would affirm the states' constitutional power to dispose of their electoral votes as they see fit.
No need to be pedantic about what an Amendment is.
“The NPV proposal calls for legislatures to pass bills committing their state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide.”
Please — this is transparent — it merely provides a convenient cover-up of the attempted demasculation of the purpose of the Electoral College
In other words, an end-around...
“I’m curious to know under what grounds you would expect the Court to overturn the compact.”
Constitutionally, political compacts are permitted between states, but all require congressional approval. Under the Constitution’s Compact Clause any changes that create a shift in political power require congressional consent. Therefore, without congressional consent the NPV Compact may not be enforceable.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case about the impact of one state’s method of appointing its presidential electors on another state (1966). However, the Court might decide to hear a case on the NPV Compact, and could decide against a group of state legislatures introducing a new system of electing a president without an amendment to the Constitution.
And please, no crap about cut-and-paste; it is what it is.