Link

A little sanity and common sense from a Democrat for once.

"Gov. Steve Sisolak has issued his first veto out of the 2019 legislative session, rejecting a proposal that would have pledged Nevada’s six electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote for the presidency.

AB186, sponsored by the late Democratic Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson, proved a divisive one in the Legislature that elicited some of the closest votes in the session. Proponents argued that it would ensure every vote counted equally, while opponents said they feared it would diminish the relevance of Nevada and other small states.

“Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose,” Sisolak said in a statement. “I recognize that many of my fellow Nevadans may disagree on this point and I appreciate the legislature’s thoughtful consideration of this important issue. As Nevada’s governor, I am obligated to make such decisions according to my own conscience. In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.”

If approved, the bill would have tied Nevada to a compact of states agreeing to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but would only take effect until enough states had joined the compact to eclipse the 270 electoral vote threshold. So far, 15 states with a total of 189 electoral votes have joined the compact, with Colorado, Delaware and New Mexico approving laws to join the initiative.

The veto adds another mark to the long list of failed attempts to get Nevada to pledge its six electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, after attempts in the 2017 and 2009 legislative sessions fell short of making it to the governor’s desk.

The Assembly had approved the bill 23-17, and the vote was not along party lines.

Opponents included Democratic Assembly Majority Leader Teresa Benitez-Thompson, who said Nevada has hard-won importance in the presidential nominating process.

“I’m not ready to cede that power to anyone, or to a state that’s bigger than us.”

Her Democratic colleague, Assemblyman Alexander Assefa, fell on the other side of the issue.

“The idea that our votes can be nullified and not count toward the election of the president is an erosion and disregard to the sacrifices made for our right to vote,” he said.

Democratic Sen. Yvanna Cancela also argued in favor of the proposal before the Senate voted 12-8 to advance it.

“This will not change the fact that we will continue to have competitive Senate races, competitive gubernatorial races, all sorts of other races that continue to elevate Nevada’s prominence in the national electoral work,” she said.

Sisolak had so far been coy about where he stood on the issue, telling The Nevada Independent last week that he had not reviewed the bill and could not say whether he would sign it."

Stopped clock. He's anti-everything most of us here stand for. He's going to sign every gun-control bill that hits his desk. They're working on them right now in committee. Mark my words.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

“Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose,” Sisolak said in a statement. “I recognize that many of my fellow Nevadans may disagree on this point and I appreciate the legislature’s thoughtful consideration of this important issue. As Nevada’s governor, I am obligated to make such decisions according to my own conscience. In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.”

Hallelujah, he's actually putting the interests of those who voted for him above his national party's. I tip my hat to him, at least for this.

I can't help wishing/hoping that Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 and the stupid lefty states end up pledging their electoral votes to him instead of to Kamala Harris who received the majority of votes in their own lefty states. These idiots really have no ability to think more than ten minutes into the future.

quote:

Originally posted by TSE:
I can't help wishing/hoping that Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 and the stupid lefty states end up pledging their electoral votes to him instead of to Kamala Harris who received the majority of votes in their own lefty states. These idiots really have no ability to think more than ten minutes into the future.

Yep, this would be the ultimate Ha! Ha! to these cockroaches.

Holy crap! If that happened and California had to vote for Trump I think the state might explode.

Won't happen in 2020. The Pact only comes into force when enough states have signed up to guarantee the outcome - which means when enough states to total up 270 electoral votes have joined the Pact. They're apparently at about 70% of what they need, per Wikipedia.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnybass:
Stopped clock. He's anti-everything most of us here stand for. He's going to sign every gun-control bill that hits his desk. They're working on them right now in committee. Mark my words.

I think they'll hold off on the gun laws, with how things have been going in the 9th circuit for now. I hope.

This will eventually be an interesting SCOTUS case. Who will have standing? Will it have to be after a state has awarded their EC votes to someone other than who won that state? Or can it happen before it comes to that? And would a ruling affect the handful of states who award their EC votes proportionately? And then what happens if a state just ignores a SCOTUS ruling they don't like? There is no punishment for such a thing. And so would a state really get their whole EC count invalidated and left out? It will probably be a while before this happens, but it could get interesting.

Why would the state legislative want to abdicate, not their vote, but the people's vote, the very same ones that elected them? If passed, why would a Navadain even bother to cast a vote?

quote:

Originally posted by TSE:
I can't help wishing/hoping that Trump wins the popular vote in 2020... These idiots really have no ability to think more than ten minutes into the future.

I pointed out to a liberal I know that the same would happen if a third-party candidate splits the Demons votes. Specifically, I told him that if that Starbucks asshole (can't be bothered to remember his name) takes his 9% from the Demons, that Illinois' electoral college votes will go to Trump. He nearly fainted. I nearly laughed.

quote:

Hallelujah, he's actually putting the interests of those who voted for him above his national party's. I tip my hat to him, at least for this.

Yep.

OK.

What's he up to?

I believe there are a couple of states that don't even have "President" on their ballots--their Electors are allocated by the state legislature. Since the Constitution gives complete control to the states as to how their Electors are chosen (and vote), this is legal. However, if the NPVIC takes control, states without voting for President will truthfully lose some of their impact because there will be no popular vote in those states to be added to the total.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Why would the state legislative want to abdicate, not their vote, but the people's vote, the very same ones that elected them? If passed, why would a Navadain even bother to cast a vote?

Well, votes in Nevada would affect the total Popular Vote counts and would therefore have an impact on Nevada's Electoral vote. (Might not make a difference, but could.)

flashguy

quote:

“Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose,”

Of fricking course! This shows once again that the left is....

1 - Mentally ill.
2 - Has a bloodlust for power that excludes any rational, intelligent, or moral approach to dissent.

It also is an open admission that the left is now bankrupt and can no longer win on the issues in an even field, so they'll stoop to whatever they have to to try and stack the election deck in their favor, no matter how illegal, immoral, of unlawful.

They are every bit the enemy of this country that Al Queda and the Taliban are.

^^^ They're not mentally ill, they're just not very thoughtful. For all of the bitching Nevada has done about being bigfooted by California in the past, the Dems in Nevada would, at the moment, prefer that the President be whoever gets the most votes in California. Oh - and they're counting on Republicans to undo it if Republicans are ever in power in that state, so that they can redo it whenever it looks to them as though the popular vote (if not the electoral vote) will favor candidates that are popular with Nevada Dems.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
This will eventually be an interesting SCOTUS case. Who will have standing?

Any voter in any state that (a) does not have an "all or none" rule for awarding electoral votes and that (b) has a substantial enough vote for whoever lost the popular vote to have awarded that candidate at least one electoral vote where (c) the number of electoral votes in question - that is, among all of the states that are part of the "Pact" - is enough to have changed the outcome of an election. The voters have the right to vote and have their votes count, and no pre-existing act of legislature can prevent that.

What may be the more interesting question (no offense) is how this plays out in state courts under state constitutions. Essentially speaking, anyone challenging this legally would get two shots at it. And I guarandamntee you one thing - this is, in a host of ways, a battle between heavily urbanized counties in some states and all of the rest of the counties in those states.

Another question to consider is whether the federal courts (as they usually do) would insist that the dispute be dragged through the state courts before they will allow it to be dragged through federal courts.

quote:

Will it have to be after a state has awarded their EC votes to someone other than who won that state? Or can it happen before it comes to that?

That depends on how the courts treat the prospective harm. Notionally, at least, there's no reason suit can't be filed before an election.

quote:

And would a ruling affect the handful of states who award their EC votes proportionately?

Why would it?

quote:

And then what happens if a state just ignores a SCOTUS ruling they don't like? There is no punishment for such a thing.

All government actors, including state secretaries of state, can have any administrative (as opposed to policy) action they take reviewed for constitutionality. If the SCOTUS says it ain't constitutional, the states in question can either comply with the court's decision or (I think, given the 14th Amendment), the assignment of all electoral votes for a state has no legal effect. The court may, or may not, call for an assignment of electoral votes based on pre-existing state law. No court will recognize the legal authority of an unconstitutionally elected President, or (I'm pretty damn' sure) legally sanction anyone else for not doing so.

quote:

It will probably be a while before this happens, but it could get interesting.

If it ever happens, "fascinating" will not be the word for it.

I'd like to see the electors split thusly:

- The elector representing a given House District shall vote the way of his district.
- The electors representing the two Senators from a given state shall vote IAW the popular vote of the State.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Why would the state legislative want to abdicate, not their vote, but the people's vote, the very same ones that elected them?

You mean "if the majority are Dems, why would they want to discount the Republican votes in their states?" Think urban vs. suburban and rural for starters. You might also want to think in terms of the Dems' ongoing push to have illegals counted in the census for purposes of congressional seats aaaaaaaannddd.....electoral votes.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

It will probably be a while before this happens, but it could get interesting.

If it ever happens, "fascinating" will not be the word for it.

Do you suppose the democrats would finally get their "Constitutional Crisis!!!!! ?"

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by vinnybass:
Stopped clock. He's anti-everything most of us here stand for. He's going to sign every gun-control bill that hits his desk. They're working on them right now in committee. Mark my words.

I think they'll hold off on the gun laws, with how things have been going in the 9th circuit for now. I hope.

They're already tooling up AB291, which repeals state preemption, allowing LV, NLV, Henderson, Boulder City, and any others to reinstate their own, more restrictive gun control. Thus making a simple drive through Clark County a minefield of onerous restrictions.