State Sovereignty - Is #10 Michigan Equally Self-Governing as #2 Texas?

The Nationa Popular Vote scheme works to change the United STATES of America into the United POPULATION of America.

MICHIGAN

Editor -

National Popular Vote Threatens Michigan's Autonomy

Here’s something to ponder: Is #10 (in size) Michigan equally self-governing as #2 Texas? Answer carefully, as it is central to how our country operates, including how we elect our president.
 
Do laws passed by the Michigan legislature apply equally to Michiganders as laws passed by the Texas legislature apply to Texans? Suppose Texas doesn’t like a Michigan law. Could they call a special election over the question? What if everyone in Texas voted “No.” Would Michigan need to care?
 
State Sovereignty
But wait, what if all 49 states—millions of people not from Michigan—voted to override the Michigan law? Would it have any force or application? Why not? Answer: state autonomy... or a term that some may find triggering ... ’sovereignty.’
 
Webster’s defines “sovereignty” as “self-governance,” among others.  We operate in America via federalism, a formal power sharing among and between the sovereign states and the central government, created when the states ratified the Constitution and reinforced by its checks and balances. This infrastructure has multiple integrated layers of operation. Among them is the Electoral College.
 
In Federalist #39, Publius (James Madison) writes, “... The proposed Constitution … is, in strictness, neither a national, nor federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.“
 
Electoral College Preserves Transparency 
In other words, the way America operates doesn’t lend itself to hasty judgments, even, or especially, by the ‘majority.’ And when we refer to a “majority” it’s according to context. A presidential election, for example, isn’t like a vote for school superintendent. What the Electoral College does is place the election of the CEO of the American Federation into ALL 50 states. That’s where people live. The only ‘majority’ that counts is the majority of state electoral votes as recorded by the Electoral College. The Electoral College also safeguards vote tabulations in each state from controversies in any other state. Remove the Electoral College and transparency becomes a thing of the past.
 
So, where is this all leading? Since 2005 a group has been pitching something they call “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” or NPVIC. It proposes to confiscate the votes of state presidential electors and hand them over to the winner of the most popular votes nationally. The Compact, which will be among only a minority of the States, would take effect when the number of members’ electoral votes in the Compact equals or exceeds 270, the number of votes needed to elect a president. It’s an attempted workaround to the ominous task of amending the Constitution.
 
Thirty-Four States Have Rejected the NPV Since 2005
To date 16 deep blue states, including mine, have joined the Compact. Here’s where it gets complicated. The legislation has consistently been voted down in 28 equally autonomous states of all sizes. In another 6 states the bill has failed to even get out of committee. That’s 34 anti-NPVIC states, three of whom have enshrined the Electoral College in their state constitutions.
 
No legal challenges have been filed because the Compact has not taken effect. But what if it did?
 
Could One Group of States Overrule a Different Group of States?
Could we really expect the courts to decide that one group of sovereign states could overrule a different group? Look to the Constitution for clues. Article V stipulates the process for amending the document, which also directs the behavior of the Electoral College in Article II (later clarified in Amendment 12). To even discuss amending the Constitution requires approval by two-thirds of Congress, or two-thirds of the states, calling for such action. If an amendment change is proposed, three-fourths, or 38, of the States, must approve the change. Where’s the evidence that this is forthcoming?
 
Remove the Electoral College as a force of law, and Michigan would be swallowed up along with Wyoming and Delaware. How might states respond? Think outside the box. How many and varied combinations of lawsuits can one imagine? And how many years might it take to adjudicate this chaos in the courts?
 
Charges, Chaos, and Confusion
Regular contributor Jim Fossell in Maine (Portland, ME Press Herald-January 21) reminds us that there were declarations of election illegitimacy (i.e., “Russian interference”) in the past two elections, not to mention the 2000 election. Disagreements sound more toxic when media voices proclaim the entire system suspect. And imagine a future in which states felt entitled to pluck one candidate or another from the ballot, based on the latest rhetorical avenue toward the 14th Amendment. 
 
All the flack about inequity and the founders’ motives won’t matter in the midst of extreme chaos.

Meanwhile, the Michigan legislature needs to carefully consider whether its citizens would be comfortable having their autonomy swallowed up into some deep and murky national stew.
 
Roberta Schlechter
Northwest Regional Director, Volunteer
Michigan-based KEEP OUR 50 STATES
Portland, OR

---