Plan to split Colorado's EVs makes ballot

[tinman64]

Plan would split Colorado's electoral votes

The Associated Press

August 17, 2004

DENVER -- A state plan to scrap the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes in Colorado is heading to the ballot in November.

If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state's electoral votes.
 
Secretary of State Donetta Davidson said Friday that supporters have gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot. If the proposal had been in place four years ago, Democrat Al Gore would have earned enough electoral votes to go to the White House. He got 266 electoral votes to President George W. Bush's 271.

Only two other states do not have winner-take-all systems of casting electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine each give two votes to the winner and their remaining electoral college votes are cast according to who won each congressional district.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens and state party chairman Ted Halaby have criticized the proposal, saying it would lessen the state's clout in presidential elections. They warn candidates will ignore the state and its nine electoral votes if the measure passes.

Julie Brown, campaign director for the Make Your Vote Count effort that supports the measure, dismissed their concerns. "It begs the question on which is more important - a two-hour presidential stop at a tarmac at Denver International Airport or true representation by the voters."

Katy Atkinson, a spokeswoman for the opposing Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea, promised a challenge if the measure passes and is applied in this year's presidential race. The proposal's backers want it to take effect before Colorado's electoral votes are cast in December. "They are ripe for a court challenge on this," Atkinson said. "If this is a close race like the one four years ago, we could be thrown into a situation where we are the Florida of 2004. We'd be the laughingstock of the country. All those Florida jokes would be applied to Colorado."

[The Vorlon]

A bit of logic here...

Option A - Bush is clearly ahead in Colorado on Election day

If we assume the Bush folks oppose this amendment, if the have enough votes to have Bush carry the state, the likely also have enough votes to defeat the amendment.

Option B - Kerry is clearly ahead on Election Day.

Are Kerry supporters actually going to vote in a way on the proposition to take EVS away from their guy...?

Option C - It is very close on election day...  If both sides think it is very close, I think most voters will be optimistic and vote against the idea in the hope their guy pulls it out...

A can't see a logical scenario where this thing passes actually..

It is also in CLEAR violation of USC 3 - so this thing gets nuked by the courts anyway, but it will not pass anyway IMHO.

[Andrew]

I was thinking about the possibilities of this.  Let's assume that the polls are right and that Bush has the lead in Colorado and that the voters believe Bush will win.  Let's also assume that voters will be thinking in the short-term, so that Bush supporters will vote NO and Kerry supporters will vote YES.

Here's what could happen:  
(1)  The voters are right, Bush wins, and the measure fails.  9-0 Bush.

(2)  The voters are wrong, Kerry wins, and the measure passes.  5-4 Kerry.

This measure would actually hurt Kerry and help Bush if it passes, because it probably only passes if Kerry wins Colorado--but Kerry's supporters will support it and Bush's will oppose it, because they believe Bush will win.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

One thing that may be important here is that Nader WILL be on the ballot in Colorado.  I'm sure almost all the Nader voters will vote FOR this amendment.  

So if Bush wins the vote narrowly, the Nader voters could actually push the amendment over the top, helping Kerry win 4 EVs.

[bullmoose88]

I don't think Bush will fall short of 50% in CO though.

Close, but >50% for Bush.

[Posterity]

It is also in CLEAR violation of USC 3 - so this thing gets nuked by the courts anyway, but it will not pass anyway IMHO.

What would be in violation of USC 3?

[Fritz]

Wouldn't a law like this have to be passed prior to the first election its applied to?  I mean, if this is on the ballot in CO this year, and it passes, I can see that it applies to 2008....but not 2004.

[© tweed]

I think this is wrong, but I'd take 4 free EV's.

[King]

This will be the first state if passed to actually split electors since Colorado is far more competitive than Maine or Nebraska...

[Giant Saguaro]

I wonder what shyster(s) came up with this idea? I don't see how it passes - seems likely to hurt whoever wins the state, but it probably hurts Bush more since CO is a lean Bush state and won the GOP normally carries. It's an interesting angle to work, granted. Be nice if we could apply the same thing in CA, NY, MI, and PA too!

[muon2]

Wouldn't a law like this have to be passed prior to the first election its applied to?  I mean, if this is on the ballot in CO this year, and it passes, I can see that it applies to 2008....but not 2004.

There are cases in some staes (I know for sure in IL) that have resolved the issue of concurrent referendum and election. In IL the ruling is that the referendum takes precedence because its results are certified before the elected candidate would be sworn into the office. Since the candidate does not lose an office already held, there is no reason to have that person take an office that is abolished by the voters.

[MODU]

I wonder what shyster(s) came up with this idea? I don't see how it passes - seems likely to hurt whoever wins the state, but it probably hurts Bush more since CO is a lean Bush state and won the GOP normally carries. It's an interesting angle to work, granted. Be nice if we could apply the same thing in CA, NY, MI, and PA too!

It's being backed by a foreign national.  I'd have to find that news article again.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is also in CLEAR violation of USC 3 - so this thing gets nuked by the courts anyway, but it will not pass anyway IMHO.

What would be in violation of USC 3?

There are three interlocking sections of 3 USC that apply here, 3 USC Sec. 5, 3 USC Sec. 6, and 3 USC Sec. 15.

3 USC Sec. 15 contains the rules for how Congress is supposed to decide whether electoral votes are valid or not.  The first hurdle that would need to passed would be 3 USC Sec. 6 which specifies how a State is supposed to certify the electors of the State and send said certification to Congress.  If Colorado only certifies one slate of electors  then Congress is left with no real option, but to accept that slate and the votes cast by that slate.  However, if court battles over the timing of when the referendum goes into effect should cause multiple slates to be certified then 3 USC Sec. 5 comes into play as it gives preference to a slate selected according to the provision of law "enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors".  The federal courts would then get to decide whether 3 USC Sec. 5 applies, which it probably would, in which case the slate selected by the previous law would apply.  But if for some reason the courts failed to so say, then it would become a political potato for Congress whose heat would depend upon whether the four electoral votes so affected would decide the election.

[muon2]

It is also in CLEAR violation of USC 3 - so this thing gets nuked by the courts anyway, but it will not pass anyway IMHO.

What would be in violation of USC 3?

There are three interlocking sections of 3 USC that apply here, 3 USC Sec. 5, 3 USC Sec. 6, and 3 USC Sec. 15.

3 USC Sec. 15 contains the rules for how Congress is supposed to decide whether electoral votes are valid or not.  The first hurdle that would need to passed would be 3 USC Sec. 6 which specifies how a State is supposed to certify the electors of the State and send said certification to Congress.  If Colorado only certifies one slate of electors  then Congress is left with no real option, but to accept that slate and the votes cast by that slate.  However, if court battles over the timing of when the referendum goes into effect should cause multiple slates to be certified then 3 USC Sec. 5 comes into play as it gives preference to a slate selected according to the provision of law "enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors".  The federal courts would then get to decide whether 3 USC Sec. 5 applies, which it probably would, in which case the slate selected by the previous law would apply.  But if for some reason the courts failed to so say, then it would become a political potato for Congress whose heat would depend upon whether the four electoral votes so affected would decide the election.

I would also worry about the interpretation of "the day fixed for the appointment of electors". Is that the election day, the day the results are certified (usually 1-2 weeks later), or the day the electors are sworn to their office?

[Gabu]

Personally, I think that this sort of thing should be applied to every state.  If a plurality of voters vote for a certain presidential candidate, it seems weird to me to have an electoral system in which that candidate can still lose (and no, I would say so even if it was the case that such a move would cause Bush to win).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would also worry about the interpretation of "the day fixed for the appointment of electors". Is that the election day, the day the results are certified (usually 1-2 weeks later), or the day the electors are sworn to their office?

It's election day as per 3 USC Sec. 1.

You must be logged in to read this quote.