To Bind or Not To Bind?
National Popular Vote is not a good idea. It is far from being adopted by the necessary states with a majority of elector votes. It is unlikely ever to reach that goal.
June 03, 2020 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
New York is one of some 20 states that does not by state statute bind its electors to vote for the presidential candidate who wins the states popular vote (There is a lower court case some 90 years ago of dubious authority that is relevant to this issue.). New York's presidential electors are, therefore, free, as a matter of state law, to vote for anyone. As Justice Robert H. Jackson famously observed in his dissent in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), this is exactly what Framers intended. Ray itself is the only Supreme Court case ever to deal with this issue, and Justice Reed's opinion leaves the question of binding up to a political party mechanism.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on May 12. The case from a Colorado federal circuit court in scholarly and thoughtful opinion held that a Colorado state law binding them was unconstitutional. In the case from the Washington State Supreme Court, the court sustained a state law penalty on an elector who did not vote for the candidate who won the state's popular vote.
Without waiting for the Supreme Court's decision, State Senators Skoufis and Myrie have introduced Senate 6886 that would make New York a statutory elector binding state. As yet, there is no Assembly counterpart bill. If enacted, this bill would take effect immediately, but would sunset prior to the 2024 presidential election.
The bill seemingly ignores the fact that New York is a member of the National Popular Vote movement. National Popular Vote purports to require member states to bind their electors to vote for the national popular vote winner regardless of who won the popular vote in their respective states. Governor Cuomo first vetoed a bill making New York a member. Later he signed another one.
For all of the reasons in my prior NYLJ commentary (see 17 Reasons Why the National Popular Vote Initiative Is Likely To Fail (Jan. 4, 2019)), National Popular Vote is not a good idea. It is far from being adopted by the necessary states with a majority of elector votes. It is unlikely ever to reach that goal. In fact, six of the states that have adopted National Popular Vote have moved to repeal its adoption, and three states have enacted legislation prohibiting adoption. Moreover, New York has never adopted the legislation required by federal law to implement its membership in National Popular Vote.
The Senate bill is obviously inconsistent with New York's National Popular Vote membership, and except for a generalized "Notwithstanding" clause, ignores New York's national popular vote membership.
Finally, if Supreme Court affirms the Colorado decision, the state binding laws of some 30 states would become unconstitutional.
William Josephson is a retired partner from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrade Secret Litigation: How Will AI Innovations Likely Be Litigated?
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 2Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 3Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 4Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 5UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250