The Effort to Change California Election Law, Through an Initiative, to Help the GOP
Why Democrats Should Not Only Fight It, But Also Push For a National Popular Vote Plan
Soon we will learn whether a few desperate but very well-funded Republicans have succeeded in collecting the necessary 434,000 valid signatures to go directly to California voters on a ballot initiative to change the election laws. If the initiative were to succeed, it could significantly help elect a GOP presidential candidate in 2008.
With a tone of considerable loathing, The American Conservative magazine - a very Republican magazine — describes this “California Schemin’” as a gimmick, arising out of a loser mentality, “to change California from a state that awards its electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis to one that hands them out proportionately.” Simply stated, the magazine notes, the goal of this effort is “to scrape up another 20 electoral votes” for the next Republican presidential candidate.
Most of the media attention has focused on the money behind this effort, which has been laundered through a dummy corporation in Missouri - and believed to come from Rudy Giuliani backers - along with the failed early efforts toward the same goal. But by late October 2007, more money and more professional help had arrived to rescue the effort. According to reports in the Los Angeles Times, it appears that they will reach their goal, and today, November 30, 2007, they will meet their deadline.
I expect the initiative organizers to announce their success soon. Of course, official confirmation of the signatures will take a bit longer, but we should all fully expect this to be on California’s ballot this coming summer. The organizers, according to the New York Times, are suggesting June as “a realistic goal for a statewide vote” on their proposal.
Will this measure succeed? Maybe, but either way, it appears this nasty drill is a no-lose undertaking for Republicans. Let me explain why, and what Democrats and others might do about it.
Voter Approval of the Presidential Reform Act Measure Is Not Impossible, but Not Likely
The Republican money that is behind this effort to break up California’s block of 55 electoral votes is not unlike the money that supported the recall drive against former Democratic Governor Gray Davis. In fact, wealthy GOP California Congressman Darrell Issa, who was a principal mover in the Davis recall that put Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger in the governor’s chair, is among those backing this latest effort to game the processes. No one believed the recall would succeed.
Without descending too deeply into the weird world of California initiative politics, suffice it to say that California ranks close to the bottom for voter registration in the nation, but more importantly, it ranks almost as poorly for voter turnout. When an issue is hot and there is a general election, you may get 45% of the voters voting. But for a statewide vote outside the normal election cycle - as this would be, as a June 2008 election - not even 30% of registered Californians may take part, and those who do will likely be the activists with an agenda who are supporting the measure.
This initiative, innocuously and misleadingly known as the Presidential Election Reform Act, will be sold to California voters as the rebirth of American democracy, with deep-voiced narrators reminding Californians that they are “fair-minded” people, and nothing is fair about the elections where the winner takes all. Of course, the winner-take-all rule is the norm in 48 states, with only Maine and Nebraska apportioning electoral votes by the popular tallies within congressional districts. However, Californians will be told that they should follow the efforts of Maine and Nebraska.
Most will yawn, ignore it all, and pay no attention. This, of course, is what the proponents of the Presidential Reform Act are banking on: the hope that with the assistance of allied groups ranging from the religious right to white supremacists, their activists can do the impossible and make a bit of history. It is a long shot, but it is a shot.
Opposition to the Presidential Reform Act Will Be Vigorous
To date, California’s sometimes centrist Republican Governor Schwarzenegger is not supporting this effort. His own earlier efforts to get around the Democratic-controlled California Legislature by using the initiative process failed miserably. Meanwhile Democratic opposition to the Presidential Reform Act will be no-holds-barred. When the proposal first appeared, the California Schemin’ story reports, “Squeals could be heard ranging from Howard Dean to every California Democrat [sic] elected official, crying everything from disenfranchisement to ’stealing’ elections.”
For good reason, the California Democratic Party chairman, Senator Art Torres, has said he will fight such a law in the Courts. As Doug Kendall reported for Slate, the so-called Presidential Reform Act is loaded with legal problems.
California political analyst Tony Quinn told NPR that Democrats were overreacting: “The likelihood of this ever passing is quite slim. I suspect that it’s more a matter the Republicans would like to put it on the ballot, drive the Democrats crazy and make them spend $20 million defeating it.”
And that is likely what will happen, which is why it is a no-lose situation for Republicans. In addition, it will divert the time and attention of the Democratic presidential nominee, who will surely make certain that California voters do not let this changing of the rules in the middle of the race slip through without a mighty fight.
Real Electoral College Reformers Must Take Advantage of the Coming California Dust-Up
Back in 2001, FindLaw columnists Vikram and Akhil Amar discussed Electoral College reform in a three part series, concluding with an explanation of how the states could adopt direct elections and remove the well-recognized weakness of the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. This suggestion did not fall on deaf ears, and state legislators - as well as several former federal legislators - from both political parties have taken action.
After years of preparation, National Popular Vote was formed on February 23, 2006; it is a bi-partisan organization to support the undertaking. National Popular Vote Inc. is a 501(c)(4) non profit corporation whose purpose is “to study, analyze and educate the public regarding its proposal to provide for the nationwide popular election of the President.” The organization has drafted legislation, and is coordinating efforts to get its proposed legislation enacted in all states. By proceeding state by state - and it would only take passage in the eleven most populous states to accomplish the goal - the cumbersome and near impossible task of amending the Constitution is avoided.
National Popular Vote’s proposed legislation (hereafter, I will refer to both the organization and the legislation as “NPV”) is ingenious. It is an agreement between states that represent a majority of the electoral votes. It becomes effective whenever a sufficient combination of the states and the District of Columbia represent an electoral majority - which means that, together, they have 270 electors, constituting a simple majority of the Electoral College. These electors, based on the interstate NPV compact, will agree to vote for the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide.
“The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that a presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the presidency,” the NPV explains. Each elector selected under the NPV will vote for the candidate who wins the total popular vote, regardless of the vote within that elector’s state.
Notwithstanding Schwarzenegger’s veto of the NPV when it was before him last year, there has been steady bipartisan progress throughout the nation, state by state, to move the NPV forward. Polling shows that over 70% of Americans support direct national polling for presidential elections, and would like to avoid the focus on only a few “battleground” states while the interests of the rest of the nation are ignored.
In short, Americans want real reform of the presidential electoral system. No more Bush v. Gore cliffhangers, and no more election years in which a president wins in the Electoral College but loses the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000. For this reason, the coming effort to rig the California vote to assist the Republicans is a perfect opportunity to refocus attention on the need to reform the Electoral College.
Whoever wins the Democratic Party’s nomination has a winning issue in campaigning on electoral reform, doing so in a bipartisan manner, and bringing the nation together on the idea of popularly electing our presidents. Since Republicans are going to force this question onto the national agenda with their actions in California, the Democrats can show true leadership by raising awareness of the National Popular Vote, as they work to kill the Presidential Reform Act.
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the President.
© 2007 FindLaw.com
George Lakoff had plenty of good reasons to point out that instead of reacting and putting oneself on the defensive, it’s time to reframe and go on the offensive. To this day, all the Democrats do is play go-along-get-along with the GOP. At this rate, it’s amazing that the Democratic Party is even alive !
The only thing keeping the Democratic Party alive is an intravenous line with money flowing through it.
John Dean, I have great admiration for you. You have really grown up. Are you still a Republican? Unfortunately your plan is so ingeniously elegant and obvious, there is little hope the Democrats will implement it. And even if the likely Democratic presidential nominee talks about it, the corporate media will be silent on the subject.
However, at the grassroots level, people are hard at work on NPV. Currently stuck in committee in most states. So people, bombard your state legislators with calls and letters to get moving.
Blimey. Dump the electoral college.
One person. One vote. What can be easier?
It doesn’t really matter because there is only one party in America. There is no difference between Dems and Repubs. They are all political whores who continue to pimp themselves to corporate America while rewriting the Constitution to legalize the fascism that we are being forced into.
Hoa binh
This initiative has been withdrawn, according to SoS Debra Bowen’s website. Go to:http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm and then scroll down to 1250.
Will Dems even mention the National Popular Vote Plan in their next “debate”?
LindaS - that’s the right general place to be looking, but it doesn’t seem certain that 1250 is the right initiative; or that this list isn’t subject to further change.
Dean’s article predicts that by today, Nov 30, the iniative’s organizers will “meet their deadline.” That makes it sound as though there could be further developments that just haven’t shown up on the final tally yet. SoS Bowen’s website says just “Propositions that are on the June 3, 2008 Statewide Direct Primary Election Ballot: None At This Time.”
Also the language in initiative #1250 doesn’t seem to say anything about dividing up the state’s electoral votes in presidential elections. It just says that electors must pledge to cast their votes for the candidates who win a plurality in the elector’s congressional district.
John Dean, tell Howard Dean. Howard Dean, get on the phone pronto.
since 1492–if it’s “all one party”, why is there so much bitter partisanship? Why all the straight partyline votes in Congress? Is it all an act, like pro wrestling? From what I hear, R’s and D’s don’t even socialize together after hours like they once did. I definitely feel Democrats are more open to our ideas than the Republicans, even though they don’t push for them very hard. I’ve thrown away plenty of meaningless protest votes. I voted for Bill Clinton twice; was I throwing my vote away? I don’t know. Our choices may be ideologically narrow, but it’s a journey of 1,000 miles to the left from where our country is right now to where we want it to be. I’m thinking our first steps are going to have to be Democrats as we know them now.
True election reform would come in the elimination of the need to fund, and thus certain wealthy individuals “purchasing” them. I shouldn’t have to have George Soros’ money to fight such a power grab by the shamed and shameful republican party. At the same time I’d fight for the idea that someone like George Soros or myself or any of you readers should have to-, be asked to-, feel compelled to- pay ANYTHING for a political campaign! Though many want to because of the simple fact that since we can, or have the “freedom” to do so, we can come as close to actually buying a government representative, in both definition and as we all know, in result.
Rationalize that as fair any way you will, but it is far from one “man” one vote. Because of this, the whole American political process has been corrupted and is able to become fascist, by definition, as the corporations are the biggest donors. And corporations, I needn’t remind everyone, are neither moral, nor persons, but have all the money, rights and thus eminently more power than we the people.
Yes, the supreme court said campaign contributions are protected under “free speech”, but everyone knows that money is not speech. And it is because of money, and greed, and apathy, and on and on, that our process is still fatally flawed. Were there sufficient time to implement this across the country, even this effort would be pointless unless we can take the money out of politics.
• Public financing only.
• No campaigning allowed beyond signature raising more than 90 days before the election. Do the job you were elected for, not whore for money to get re-elected for pity’s sake!
Where are we now? Oh, I can force you to spend 20 million dollars to fight something that, were it enacted across the country would be the fair, and right thing to do, but the way it’s being implemented will potentially allow more destruction of our civil liberties and constitutional freedoms by allowing republicans to potentially remain in control of the white house.
Truly, if our country was in better shape with respect to our moral and ethical foundation and behavior, we wouldn’t need the NPV because the electors, having this capability, would exercise their moral obligation and vote the way the citizens did. Instead, the great divide and constant fighting between rabid right and left makes for leadership by judicial decree instead of the will of the people.
Pitiful. Shameful. Egregious!
As a Californian I can tell you flat out. If this Initiative is on the ballot Democrats will turn out in DROVES to defeat it.
You will see a Democrat voter registration drive like none other launched before.
Therefore, if this has been “withdrawn” as The State of California’s website suggests, the reason is that it finally dawned on these Giuliani NITWITS that the Initiative would cause BEYOND a Democrat landslide in the election. It would be a Democrat political ROGUE FREAKIN’ WAVE!!!!!
Duh.
There was a time I cared about such things, when I still believed it made a difference whether a candidate had a D or and R after their name—now mostly what I say is YAWN!!!! Wake me when we actually have some real choices. Sorry for the cynicism but nothing I read or hear these days convinces me this system will be “fixed” by either Party.
All I see in this is ” Money money everywhere!” How much will be generated/spent in the media advertising to promote/oppose this measure? It’s a kabuki play folks, to convince us this is about something OTHER than $$$$$$$$$$.
Both parties have it, both parties spend it, and then they just get more from the same monied interests. It’s a very closed and cozy system, no? and yes…it’s sick as hell.
I find it utterly disgusting all the political experts on this web sight who don’t see any difference between the Democratic and Republican parties anymore. I somehow wonder where they have been for the last 20 years? The two are as different as night and day. Then again it’s the only excuse they can come up with for voting for some third party candidate that can’t win an election. The Republican party tightly controls it’s party. You either vote the Republican way or no funds for future campaigns, no committee’s and no nothing. Whereas the Democratic party each member votes the way they see fit. The party doesn’t have the tight control the Republican’s do. The Republican’s are strictly for the rich (which should be obvious through George Bush’s policieis)the Democrat’s are more for the working and poor. The Republican party is now controlled almost exclusively by religious hacks determined to being theocracy to our great nation. Democrat’s have the religious as well as the secularist and the atheist in their party. So, if you don’t see the difference you have a more serious problem than I suspected. I am not happy on some of the things the Democrat’s do. I wish they had more backbone and tenacity. But you have to stop and think we have had one party rule in this country for quite a few years now. There is only so much the Democrat’s can do within the law without indulging in some of Bush’s less than reputable tactic’s. People in this country have to be willing to stand behind what is right and say no to what is wrong. So, until I see something better I will continue to vote a straight Democratic ticket. I refuse to even vote for a moderate Republican until they clean their party up. The Democrats are the least of the evils in this country today. John Dean used to be a Republican he has re registered as an independent. If you had read any of his books he is just as upset with the current route the conservative Republican’s have taken as most of us are.
Sure, peacemaker, there’s a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are getting far more corporate money than Republicans these days, and putting two more drops in the bucket for the working class schmucks (read: suckers). And while Republicans are up front about screwing the middle class, the Democrats do it behind their backs and lie about it. The Republicans insist we can win the occupation in Iraq while the Democrats keep funding it and insisting they are doing all they can to end it (except using their Constitutional authority to stop funding it of course). The Republicans write laws to shred our Bill of Rights, but all the Democrats do is vote Yes. The Republicans reward their base (the haves and have mores) for loyalty while the Democrats kick their base in the teeth and feel entitled to their loyalty anyway.
I will continue to vote for what I want, and it’s not a Democrat, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich.
1drees, a most sobering site. Doesn’t matter if he’s for real or not. He speaks the truth.