SELECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS AMENDMENT 36 {Colorado}Popular vote is it legal?

http://www.leg.state.co.us ^ | ? | colorado

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Ballot Title: An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning popular

1 proportional selection of presidential electors, and, in connection therewith, creating

2 procedures for allocating Colorado's electoral votes for president and vice-president of

3 the United States, based on the proportion of ballots that are cast in this state for each

4 presidential ticket; making the terms of the proposed amendment effective so that

5 popular proportional selection of presidential electors applies to the 2004 general

6 election; setting forth procedures and timelines that govern the certification of election

7 results and the potential recounting of votes in elections for presidential electors and in

8 the election on this proposed amendment; granting the Colorado supreme court original

9 jurisdiction for the adjudication of all contests concerning presidential electors and

10 requiring that such matters be heard and decided on an expedited basis; and authorizing

11 the general assembly to enact legislation to change the manner of selecting presidential

12 electors or any of the procedures contained in this amendment. 13

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/initrefr.nsf/0/69836dccc258499287256e9200650532/$FILE/Amendment%2036%20-%20Presidential%20Electors.pdf

Read the file and get out your duct tape cause your head is gonna explode !

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

ping

[aft_lizard]

Can they do this pre-election? Isnt this just another form of gerrymandering? And if so then it can only be done post ten year national census.

[atomicpossum]

Legal or not, it's dumb.

[zbigreddogz]

Is there any chance it's going to pass?

[So Cal Rocket]

Here's the flaw in the Amendment:

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

This conflicts with the US Constitution:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

God i hope your right id hate to think we would elect a President because he/she Has a pretty smile and a nice tan but no brains!

[Rakkasan1]

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
This obvious ploy by the Democrats will never pass a court challenge as anyone with a brain can read Clause 2 of the United States Constitution above and see that the State Legislature is the ONLY body that can choose the way electors are chosen. This one is DOA even if the electorate would choose to pass it -- CO Supreme Court not to mention the SCOTUS will knock this one down faster than you can say John Kerry is going to lose! If they are basing their reasoning on the word "may," then once again they will be ruled against.

Whoever heard of a referendum on such an issue that would go into affect with this election. This issue along with Kerry will go down to a large defeat in Colorado and Peter Coors will be the next Senator from Colorado IMO!
(all credit for above post goes to PhiKapMom originally
posted on 09/13/2004 8:18:32 AM )

[Paleo Conservative]

It sure as hell is unconstitutional, because it is a referendum. The constitution very specifically says that the state legislatures, and only the state legislatures have the authority to determine the method by which electors are chosen! The Colorado legislature very specifically rejected such a system.

As long as large states like California, New York and Texas do not change from a winner take all system, it is not in the interest of small states like Colorado to do so.

I also don't want to forgot to mention that it also violates the federal election code. The method by which the electors is selected must be in place before (as I recall at least six days prior to) the date the electors are chosen which is election day. Even if the a referendum were a valid mechanism of determining the method of allocating electors, this referendum is too late to affect the 2004 election. This referendum should be fought in court and removed from the ballot.

Article II.

Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[Political Junkie Too]

What I notice right away is that this is a straight popular vote apportionment. However, electoral votes are based on the number of congressional districts and senate seats.

This actually has the effect of diminishing the votes of people in rural districts because the sheer volume of votes in urban centers is enough to "steal" the electoral vote from rural districts.

If they really wanted to fairly apportion electoral votes, then they should award them on a district by district basis, based on the winner of each individual district. Then, award the Senate votes to either: 1) the candidate with the most district votes, or 2) the winner of the overall popular vote.

They way that they have it now, a candidate can overwhelmingly win the urban center but just barely lose in the rural outlying areas, and still win the majority of electoral votes because of the big urban showing.

-PJ

[atomicpossum]

This conflicts with the US Constitution:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors

But couldn't a state regulation require the Legislature to apportion based on the earlier vote? Not set the number of electors directly by the people, but require that the Legislature do so? Can't the state have its own procedures governing the Legislature?

[So Cal Rocket]

I don't think so... the US Constitution also guarantees a republican form of Government - what you describe is a democratic form of Government. (small "r" and small "d")

[matchwood]

Governor Owens stated last week that he is going to start a fund raising effort to combat 36. Being from Colorado I think it will not pass however a large percentage of Denver voters ordinarily vote Democrat and most of them will probably vote for for it. If it were to pass, it would be effective immediately - election day, however preparations are already in the mill to challenge it if it does. On the other hand, should something like this become legal, California and New York could more than off-set the effect in future years. Nevertheless, it goes against the constitution - we are a Republic not a Democracy.

[rickp3131]

I guess it shouldn't surprise me the electoral college is once again being vilified. The many people, probably by most who didn't vote, found out during the 2000 election that we don't elect someone based on a popular vote and thought the electoral college was a way to surppress the minority vote. I'm amazed how the founding fathers could design a system then to save us from ourselves today. Our nation is in deep trouble if we give into a popular vote.

[Political Junkie Too]

The other thing then, is the challenge.

I don't think it's constitutional to change an election law while the election is underway. You can't vote on Nov. 2 for how you are going to count the ballots on Nov. 2. You would have to make it effective for the next election in 2008.

Furthermore, if (when?) it is challenged, that would have the effect of not having ANY electoral votes count, since the state will not be able to send a delegation to the electoral college. That, in essence, gives those votes to the House Of Representives to settle, which will give all of Colorado's electoral votes to Bush because the House is Republican.

-PJ

[xlib]

The amendment-by-popular vote process was itself approved by the legislature, thereby satisfying the constitution. Originally, the legislatures themselves directly chose the electors; eventually, each state legislature passed laws deferring to a popular vote, but in most cases preserving the winner-take-all provision.

[matchwood]

I think you are right and I hope you are right - what is distressing is how the people behind this thing could even imagine they could make it work. In a close election it could tie up the final results and the Dems would cry "stolen election" again however, I have been very optimistic and believe this will not be a close election and Bush will win in a landslide but, this is a serious matter and hopefully it will be put to rest once and for all - especially before Hillary goes on the warpath for 2008.

[aruanan]

Thanks for pointing out what so many folks are so unable to see.

[aruanan]

But couldn't a state regulation require the Legislature to apportion based on the earlier vote? Not set the number of electors directly by the people, but require that the Legislature do so? Can't the state have its own procedures governing the Legislature?

No, only if those state procedures are created by the state's legislature.

[Paleo Conservative]

If it were to pass, it would be effective immediately - election day, however preparations are already in the mill to challenge it if it does.

In violation of the federal election code. The method for selecting electors must be in place before the date of the selection of electors.