National Popular Vote, Inc.

National Popular Vote, Inc.
Name	National Popular Vote, Inc.
Type	Nonprofit advocacy organization
Founded	2006
Founder	Unknown
Location	United States
Key people	Unknown
Purpose	Electoral reform

National Popular Vote, Inc. is an American nonprofit advocacy organization that promotes adoption of a nationwide popular vote for selecting the President of the United States through an interstate compact. The group coordinates legislative campaigns among state legislatures, engages with policymakers in state capitals, and litigates or advises litigation related to presidential selection, interacting with actors such as United States Supreme Court, United States Congress, State of California, State of New York, and State of Texas. Its work places it in frequent contact with organizations like League of Women Voters, Brennan Center for Justice, American Civil Liberties Union, Heritage Foundation, and The Brookings Institution.

History

National Popular Vote, Inc. traces its origins to advocacy efforts following the 2000 United States presidential election and the Bush v. Gore decision that intensified debate over the Electoral College (United States). Early campaigns referenced earlier reform proposals such as the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment and discussions in the Progressive Era, while drawing attention from commentators at The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, and NPR. The organization coordinated model legislation introduced in multiple state legislatures including California State Legislature, New York State Assembly, and Colorado General Assembly, echoing reform debates seen during the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the aftermath of the Election of 1876. Its timeline overlaps with other reform movements such as efforts surrounding the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and responses from actors like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission advocates.

Mission and Objectives

The stated mission focuses on ensuring that the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide becomes President, aligning with principles debated by figures such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson during the framing of the Constitution of the United States. Objectives include persuading state legislatures to adopt an interstate compact modeled on precedents like the Interstate Compact Clause and compacts such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey agreement, and to implement administrative changes referenced in cases like McPherson v. Blacker. The organization lists goals comparable to reforms advanced by Reform Party of the United States of America advocates and critics from Federalist Society networks.

Legal and Constitutional Issues

Legal debates center on the Electoral College (United States), the United States Constitution, and the authority of state legislatures under Article II and the Electors Clause. Scholars and litigants cite precedents including Chiafalo v. Washington, Ray v. Blair, and McPherson v. Blacker while analyzing the compact under the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution and decisions like Virginia v. Tennessee. Constitutional scholars from Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and Stanford Law School have published arguments both supporting and challenging the compact's legality, as have commentators from Cato Institute and Center for American Progress. Courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and state supreme courts such as the California Supreme Court could be venues for disputes.

Legislative Strategy and Interstate Compacts

The organization's legislative strategy mirrors approaches used in interstate coordination such as the Driver License Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, promoting a uniform statute—the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact—adopted by state legislatures. The compact is designed to take effect when states collectively holding a majority of electoral votes, equal to the threshold in the United States Electoral College, enact it; this threshold evokes historic counts used in controversies like the Compromise of 1790. Legislative campaigns have targeted chambers including the United States Senate analogs at state level and rely on allies in bodies such as the California State Senate, New York State Senate, Maryland General Assembly, and Rhode Island General Assembly.

Political Support and Criticism

Supporters include politicians, commentators, and organizations from across the spectrum such as members of the Democratic Party (United States), reform advocates aligned with Rock the Vote, and scholars at institutions like Columbia University. Critics stem from quarters including the Republican Party (United States), constitutional traditionalists associated with Federalist Society, and state actors in Alabama, Florida, and Texas who argue potential conflicts with practices defended in cases like Bush v. Gore. Editorial voices in outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and think tanks like Hudson Institute have articulated objections, while proponents cite democratic principles discussed in analyses by United Nations experts and historians of the Founding Fathers.

Organizational Structure and Funding

The organization operates as a nonprofit entity with a board, staff, and state-based coalitions, interacting with philanthropic funders and political donors similar to funding patterns found at OpenSecrets reports on groups like the Soros-aligned foundations and conservative donors tracked by The Heritage Foundation. Funding sources include individual contributions, grants, and in-kind support coordinated with allied groups such as the State Innovation Exchange and advocacy networks akin to Common Cause. Financial transparency and reporting follow nonprofit norms regulated by Internal Revenue Service filings and scrutiny from watchdogs like ProPublica.

Impact and Controversies

Impact includes enactment of the compact statute in several states, shifts in public debate comparable to landmark reforms like the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and controversies echoing disputes over electoral fraud claims in high-profile elections. Controversies involve questions about interstate coordination, potential litigation before the United States Supreme Court, and partisan disputes visible in state legislative battles similar to those over voter identification laws and redistricting cases such as Rucho v. Common Cause. The initiative continues to affect strategic planning by presidential campaigns, polling firms like Gallup, and political scientists at institutions including Princeton University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Category:Electoral reform organizations in the United States