Now that the Build Back Better Act (sometimes called the Great Giveaway) has stalled, Democrats have decided that their top legislative priority is something called the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (sometimes called the Permanent Majority Act), which will effectively give the federal government the ability to dictate the electoral practices of individual states.
To pass it, the Senate would have to eliminate the filibuster, which would require the support of a couple of Senators who oppose this move. (Perhaps they’re just traditionalists. Or perhaps they’re thinking ahead about what might happen should Republicans ever gain control of the Senate without a filibuster.)
But regardless of whether it passes, the buzz surrounding it makes this a perfect opportunity for the passage of an alternative law at the state level. Unlike the John Lewis Act, this one would actually be constitutional. So constitutional, in fact, that it would make a lot of heads spin.
Remember those 19 states that were told by the federal courts that they didn’t have ‘standing’ to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election?
These states — and other states that want the federal government to respect their sovereigntah — should individually pass something that we might call the James Wilson Voting Act, after the inventor of the Electoral College.
The state legislature, in any state adopting this law, would bypass the traditional collection of popular votes for president and skip directly to appointing a slate of Electors to send to the Electoral College.
Say what? Is that even possible? Check your Constitution. (The written version, not the oral version used by politicians, bureaucrats, and judges.) In Article 2, Section 1, we find this:
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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
A state legislature may choose to use an election to decide which Electors to appoint. But it isn’t required to do that. And as opportunities for vote fraud increase, it seems less and less like a good idea.
This is a huge opportunity for the states to remind the federal government of something that a lot of people have forgotten and that a lot of others never bothered to learn: It’s the states that elect a president. Not the people.
(There’s a big clue that this is the case right there in the name of the country: It’s the United States of America, not the United People of America, or the People’s Republic of America, or anything like that.)
Can you imagine the tempête de merde that this would cause back in Washington?
Better still, can you imagine the wave of reclamation of state sovereignty that this might stir up away from Washington — not just regarding elections, but a whole range of areas in which the federal government has acted as if the Ninth and Tenth Amendments simply don’t exist?
How soon could we make this happen in New Hampshire?