4 ms·
That would prevent any such pact from being legally binding on the states. It doesn't necessarily prevent states from coordinating at all.
by JoshTriplett 7y ago
That would prevent any such pact from being legally binding on the states. It doesn't necessarily prevent states from coordinating at all.
- new_time 7y agoExactly, this seems like an friendly handshake agreement to cooperate with an official name and press release. OTOH, pacts like the popular vote compact signed by some states in the past few years is almost certainly unconstitutional.
- JoshTriplett 7y agoIs it? They're each deciding, independently, to handle their electors in a certain fashion. They each have the right to independently change that decision, without any penalty for doing so. It's not a binding agreement with another state in any fashion.
- kelnos 7y ago> OTOH, pacts like the popular vote compact signed by some states in the past few years is almost certainly unconstitutional. Why would that be the case? Electors are not bound by any particular (federal) rules in how they cast their votes. If we look at the popular vote compact as a friendly handshake agreement (to which electors are not legally bound), they are free to fulfill the handshake agreement and vote along with the national popular vote. Of course, if a signatory decides last-minute to betray that agreement, there perhaps would be no legal remedy.
- wahern 7y agoAFAIU whether the agreement is expressly legally binding is not dispositive. See, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-10/clause-3/interstate-compacts https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec.... Thus even if it's likely to pass muster (and I'm sure it was drafted with that in mind) there still could be colorable arguments that permit a legitimate challenge, especially if politically expedient. But I'm not that familiar with this area of law so I welcome corrections accompanied with citations.