Probably so ... however, it is explicitly Constitutional, according to Article 2, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....
That they're "directing" themselves into meaninglessness is beside the point -- they're acting within the bounds of the Constitution.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, ,b>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.
My emphasis. This seems to me to be a compact among states, especially since the laws as passed by various states all call for the law to only go into effect after other states have taken a similar action.
I would agree with you that there is nothing unconstitional about this movement. However, I do claim that it violates the Voting Rights Act. If a state conducts an election for a slate of Presidential Electors, then they MUST honor the results of that election. So, if a state really wants to join this compact, they must abolish the popular election of Presidential Electors within their own state. Now how far do you think that would fly???
So, from that POV, the Constitution is fighting with itself? Where in Art II Sec 1 does it say how the State shall direct the Electors as to who to vote for?
What if the State passed a law that ordered the Electors to vote for the person the Chairman of the Democrat Party instructed them to vote for? Would that pass Constitutional muster? I mean, it would be a law whereby the State would be determining the manner of the appointment of Electors, as you suggest.
What I’m saying is that the State doesn’t have the power to violate one section of the Constitution just because they are empowering themselves with another section.