What happens if both the National Popular Vote Compact and the District Method propositions are on the ballot, and both pass? Which would take precedence?
The California initiative for the National Popular Vote Compact has language that says in the event of conflicting measures, that it will take effect if receives more votes than any other initiative (it doesn't say what would happen if both passed, and the NPVC received fewer votes).
There are actually two versions of the National Popular Vote Compact initiative that received the approval by the AG before petitions could be circulated. This appears to be a fairly common practice in California, so there must be some practical reason for doing so. I can't conceive of trying to collect signatures for two almost identical initiatives.
The filing deadline (for both versions) was March 10. In California, initiatives are filed with the individual counties (voters have to sign a petition in the county where they are registered). The counties then make a raw count of signatures and report that to the Secretary of State. They have 8 working days to make the raw count, and the SoS has another 9 days to decide whether there is a minimum number filed.
During that period the SoS web site doesn't show any indication what has happened. In most cases, the initiative is way short of signatures, and they don't even get filed with the counties - but officially the SoS is presuming that the counties may be making signature counts.
If there are minimum raw signatures, the SoS then directs the counties to make random checks of signatures (using a 3% sample) against voting rolls. The random check will generate an estimate of valid signatures. If this is greater than 110% of the needed signatures, the measure qualifies for the ballot. If it is less than 95% of the needed signatures, the measure fails. If it is between 95% and 110% then the counties will do a full check of all signatures.
There have actually been 3 separate initiatives for the district method, that have been filed to begin the petitioning process, and there may be a 4th.
The first was withdrawn just before its filing deadline, which gave the impression that the real effort was going into the 2nd one.
There were press reports that the 2nd version was going to be filed early in order that it could be on the June primary ballot, and they were doing everything possible to get enough signatures to withstand signatures being ruled invalid. Nothing happened. And then when the regular deadline came up nothing was filed.
The 3rd version had a filing deadline of March 18. It is slightly different in that it would not go into effect until a majority of States had adopted some form of proportional allocation of electors (eg until 23 other States join ME, NE, and CA). I suspect it was just created in order to provide an alternative to the 2nd version. Since the 2nd wasn't filed, I imagine that the 3rd wasn't either.
There is a rumor of a 4th version to be filed with the AG. If it is, I don't think there is chance to be on the ballot this year.
There is a possibility that it is unconstitutional to for a State to determine its method of appointing electors via the initiative process.
Article II, Section 1 says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors ..."
The SCOTUS would have to determine whether "Legislature" is the body that meets in Sacramento, or whether it represents the "legislative process" of California. The principle behind the initiative, is that all legislative power is vested in the People, and that the legislature only acts under a conditional grant of authority. In California it might also face a court challenge because California does not permit the legislature to modify an initiated measure without a referendum. Article II, Section 1 could imply that the legislature of a State could change the manner of appointment at will.