The talk is getting more serious. A number of people in the rural areas of Virginia, especially in the western part of the state, are openly exploring the idea of urging their county governments to leave the state of Virginia and join West Virginia.
Similar complaints are being raised with increasing seriousness in rural areas of Oregon and a handful of other states. I will address this issue from the perspective of my home state, Virginia.
The U.S. Constitution contains no meaningful barrier to this action if the people and local governments of the affected areas of Virginia and West Virginia earnestly desire it. Article IV Section 3 requires the consent of a state legislature if a new state is to be formed out of an existing state. If a new state is to be formed out of two existing states, then both of the affected state legislatures must consent. Congress must also consent to either of these scenarios.
But nothing in the Constitution prohibits one or more counties of an existing state from leaving one state and joining another. Neither the consent of the original state nor the consent of Congress is required.
If the consent of Congress is thought to control this kind of transfer in general, it appears that Congress has already consented in the case of West Virginia. Article VI, Section 11 of the West Virginia Constitution permits the annexation of “additional territory” upon the approval of the legislature and a ratifying vote of the people of West Virginia. This provision was a part of West Virginia’s original Constitution, which Congress approved.
I am not ready to advocate this transfer of Virginia counties to West Virginia, although I am very sympathetic to the underlying dissatisfaction that has led good people to consider this dramatic alternative.
...It’s not just Virginia. Rural and other non-urban voters are seeing themselves more and more as a powerless and oppressed minority in many states.
The biggest threat to non-urban voters is the powerful, yet dubious, effort to effectively require a national popular vote for president to supplant the Electoral College. An interstate compact, currently adopted by 15 states and the District of Columbia—all controlled by the Democratic Party—will guarantee that their electoral votes will go to the candidate winning the national popular vote. States with 74 more electoral votes are needed to trigger the compact, since it purports to become effective when the electoral vote of participating states comprises a majority of the electoral votes.
3 comments:
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 for a national popular vote.
It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.
Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).
Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill
In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”.
On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote
In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.
In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.
In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill
Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s votes may go to Democrats.
Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0
The current system completely ignores conservative presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic.
In now Blue Virginia, a Republican vote for President has not helped a Republican candidate in years..
All of Virginia's electors have been Democrats.
With National Popular Vote, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
All votes would matter and count equally in the national vote total.
The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire or Florida. The National Popular Vote bill would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.
The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
Post a Comment