Voting In California: What Constitution?
Forget 1776. Forget Washington crossing the Delaware, John Hancock and the Constitution itself. The tradition of America is irrelevent, at least according to the California Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana). On Tuesday, the Assembly Elections Committee, of which Umberg is the chair, passed two bills, authored by Umberg, that would alter the way California elects the President.
One of the bills, AB2948 (.pdf) would undercut the electoral college, and thus the very constitution upon which our nation was founded and built. Several Assembly Republicans oppose the legislation.
[AB2948} would ratify an interstate compact under which California's 55 Electoral College members would agree to support the winner of the national popular vote for President regardless of the outcome of the election in California” (San Francisco Examiner, 4/26/06, emphasis added)
In other words, it would remove California’s individuality in electing a President by submitting all Electors to place their vote for the candidate receiving the largest popular vote. The second bill, AB2949 (.pdf) would require that California hold the first national primary election, in an effort to compete with New Hampshire. The bill suggests that it should be held on January 2nd of the election year.
“It’s an effort to make California relevant again in presidential elections,” Umberg said, clearly unaware of the influence California’s 55 Electoral votes have when it comes to Presidential elections, and clearly disregarding the fact that California’s interests, as determined by state election results would be superceded by national voting outcomes. This should be obvious, considering the goals of AB2948, so I can only assume that Assemblyman Umberg is being misleading in his statements.
The legislation presented is an attempt to eliminate the means to elect a president which have been used in our country since it’s inception. The Electoral College is defined in the Constitution, Article II Section i,
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress… (emphasis added)
What Umberg fails to understand (or chooses to ignore) is the very important role the electoral college plays in regards to balancing powers between states. Much the same way that the Federal Congress is composed of two Houses with very different numbers of members, the Electoral College plays a vital role ensuring that the interests and individuality of each state are not compromised. There was a distinct reason why the framers of our constitution did not call for a popular vote to determine the Presidency in the constitution.
Four other states, Louisiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Colorado, are also in the compact to pass similar legislation.
Cross-posted at The Gentle Cricket
April 27th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Pretty soon to vote in Cali all you will have to do is show up at the polling place to vote. Citizen? who cares? its not like we pay attention to your vote anyway.
April 27th, 2006 at 9:53 am
So, basically, his intent is to disenfranchise those of us that live in less populous states.
April 27th, 2006 at 11:19 am
No way this bill would pass. The Democratic leadership in the Legislature would not want to throw away any advantage Democratic presidential nominees have. (Only Republican nominees from California have a chance at winning.)
April 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
So let me get this straight. California has passed a law that would have had 55 electoral votes going to GW Bush in ‘04 instead of to Kerry? Do they realize they have made it imperative for people in EVERY state to vote regardless of how futile it might be in their own state? (however that person votes, so might go all of CA’s 55 electoral votes.)
April 27th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
This is not an attempt to make California “relevant.” This is an attempt to make California “subserviant.” This bill is designed to invalidate any vote that doesn’t match the rest of the country. His theory is that we would then follow the blue states in every presidential election.
His biggest problem, of course, is that the “popular” vote in the last election favored Bush, anyway. He captured 50.7%. By his rule, that means California, which was a Kerry state, would have been forced to throw all its votes to Bush.
April 27th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
As someone else commenting at another blog pointed out, compacts between states are prohibited by Article 1, Section 10, U.S. Constitution:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Earlier primary - probably not a bad idea.
But giving all 55 votes to the national winner effectively means that we might as well do away entirely with federal elections.
At least, that’ll save the state a lot of money.
Poor Tom. You’d think he’d have read the Constitution. But I guess they don’t do that any more in schools.
May 31st, 2006 at 7:15 am
[...] Last month I wrote about AR2948 (What Constitution?, also at California Conservative), a bill written by Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) in the California legislature that would undercut the Electoral process set forth in the constitution. [AB2948] would ratify an interstate compact under which California’s 55 Electoral College members would agree to support the winner of the national popular vote for President regardless of the outcome of the election in California” (San Francisco Examiner, 4/26/06) [...]
July 10th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
8906
Everybody is looking for Free Sex.
Find your free sex Porn Downloads here.