"Dr. Koza’s compact, if approved by enough legislatures, would commit a state’s electors to vote for the candidate who wins the most national votes, even if the candidate loses in that state."
Article 1 Section 10
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
It's not going to happen, as you have to get congressional approval if there is compact between states. Regardless, if Schwarzenegger signs this, then I will quit the Republican party and become an anarchist.
"if Schwarzenegger signs this, then I will quit the Republican party and become an anarchist."
If Arnold signs this, HE has quit the (R) party. Don't join him and this bill's author/supporters in anarchy...
This is not a "compact" in the Article I Section 10 sense, since it's not actually an agreement between states. Instead it's a procedure which doesn't go into effect until enough other states (representing at least 270 electoral votes) pass similar laws. That's perfectly legal and Constitutional.
There are powerful political reasons why this is a futile measure. Most small states and most competitive states are not going to approve similar laws because it would undercut the advantages they now hold in the electoral college. Only large states like California, which are already non-competitive, are going to endorse this proposal because there's no downside -- their electoral votes are already irrelevant in the Presidential calculus.
If we ever approached the 270 electoral vote threshold at which this would take effect, people would start looking very closely at the partisan makeup of the states involved. If going over the threshold would benefit Democrats, then Republican states wouldn't sign on and vice versa. So that 270 electoral vote threshold is a much higher barrier than is immediately obvious.
Think of the following analogy: Suppose California endorsed a Constitutional Amendment to make the number of Senators proportional to a state's population, instead of the present fixed number of two per state. Obviously that would benefit California and other big states. But what are its chances of going into effect? Zero. Because the small states which would be hurt would never ratify it.
Even though this isn't a Constitutional Amendment, it can't achieve it's goal unless the small states and toss-up states go along with it. If large states were to put it into effect, they'd be at an even bigger disadvantage than they are now. So it either won't happen or it will backfire.
Not that I support this hairbrained California proposal, but this in fact is NOT a compact between states.
It is simply a decision by one state, California, to give their Electoral College votes to a particular candidate.
In fact, there is no "compact" between any two states. There is only one state, California, making a decision. (again, I don't support this nutty proposal, but I'm not sure it violates that statute you mentioned)