Colorado: another nail in the elctral collg coffin

[Andrew]

1) Horrible for the actual voters of Colorado, because it takes away any reason for EITHER candidate to really do much there. At best they get what, 1 more electoral vote?

I keep seeing this argument, but I don't really understand it.  Is there really some benefit to the voters from having Presidential candidates wandering around their state?

I guess the TV stations like being in battleground states, because they sell ads to the campaigns--but they can always sell that same time to grocery stores or something.  The money's the same.

[Andrew]

There is a lot of speculation here about how the electoral votes would be split up if this passes.  The text of the proposed amendment is here:  http://tinyurl.com/48u77

Here's the process:  

1.  Multiply the proportion of votes for each candidate by the number of electoral votes for Colorado (this year, 9).

2.  Round these numbers off to the nearest whole number.

3.  If the total is too big, take electoral votes away from the last candidate receiving electoral votes until the number is right.  If, after taking away all of the last candidate's votes, the number is still too big, take electoral votes away from the next-last candidate.

4.  If the total is too small, give any unallocated votes to the candidate receiving the most votes.

In 2000, it would have gone this way:

Bush:  .5075 x 8 = 4.06, rounded to 4.
Gore:  .4239 x 8 = 3.3912, rounded to 3.
Nader:  .0525 x 8 = 0.42, rounded to 0.
Browne, etc. all round to 0.

4+3+0=7, which is too few.  Bush won the state, so he gets the extra vote.

Bush 5, Gore 3, others 0.

[Andrew]

I haven't seen which method of allocation CO proposes in its referendum.

Sure you have; I posted a description and a link in the second post on the second page.

[Andrew]

3 USC 5. . . . If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors .  . . such determination . . . shall be conclusive . . . .

Colorado will not have enacted its law prior to the day fixed (November 2nd, 2004), and thus any electors appointed if the referendum is approved will not have the presumption of being valid.

The method of choosing electors does not have to be determined prior to election day.  3 U. S. C. §5 says that if a state has laws in place prior to election day for dealing with contests or controversies about electors, and if the state applies those laws to resolve the contest in time, then the state's determination is conclusive.


Well, guess what?  Colorado has a law in place to deal with such controversies:  

C.R.S. 1-11-204. Contests for presidential elector.
The [Colorado] supreme court has original jurisdiction for the adjudication of contests concerning presidential electors and shall prescribe rules for practice and proceedings for such contests. No justice of the court who is a contestor in the election contest shall be permitted to hear and determine the matter.


3 U. S. C. §2 makes it clear that the electors may be appointed after election day by whatever method the state legislature directs.  Colorado case law makes it clear that citizens voting on a ballot measure are regarded as state legislature.

If this measure makes it to the ballot, and if Colorado's voters approve of it, it can take effect this year.

[Andrew]

If the Secretary of State certifies that the 9 Bush electors are elected, Kerry or Nader electors could contest the election on the basis that some of them should have been elected under terms of the initiative.  But the procedures for contesting the election will have been modified after the election.   Does it matter that the procedures are similar, but the grounds for contesting the election have changed?

The procedures are not modified at all by the proposal:  "The supreme court has original jurisdiction for the adjudication of contests concerning presidential electors and shall prescribe rules for practice and proceedings for such contests."  The additional wording in the proposal just says that the court has to deal with such issues right away, because of the time pressure.

[Andrew]

If I call the Supreme Court prior to the election and ask when I must file a contest of the election for presidential electors, and am told that under procedures that are currently in place, I have 30 days after the canvas, and then am told that I no longer have 30 days, hasn't the procedure been changed?

Not the procedure for making a "final determination of any contest or controversy," which is what 3 U.S.C. §5 is about.  You're talking about changing the procedure for filing such a contest.