View source for National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2012}}
{{Infobox Treaty
| name                = National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
| long_name           = 
| image               = [[File:Cartogram NPVIC Current Status.svg|300px]]
| image_width         = 260px
| border              = yes
| caption             = {{refbegin}}{{unbulleted list|style=text-align:left
|Status {{as of|2016|10|lc=y}}<!--Please do not remove "as of" template; it is used to mark potentially dated statements for maintenance-->:
|{{color sample|#90FF90}} Enacted into law (165 electoral votes; {{percent|165|538|1}} of EC)
|{{color sample|#f0fa00}} Pending in current legislative session (36 EVs; {{percent|36|538|1}})
|{{color sample|#CCCCCC}} Not enacted and no bill pending (337 EVs; {{percent|337|538|1}})<ref name=progress>[http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/states Progress in the States], National Popular Vote.</ref>
}}
''Each square in the lower [[cartogram]]<br>represents one electoral vote.''
{{hr}}
{{refend}}
| type                =
| date_drafted        = February 2006
| date_signed         = 
| location_signed     = 
| date_sealed         =
| date_effective      =  ''Not in effect''
| condition_effective =  Adoption by several of the states and including the District of Columbia whose collective electoral vote total represents an absolute majority of votes (at least 270) in the Electoral College. '''''Note:''' The agreement would be in effect only among the assenting constituent political entities.''
| date_expiration     =
| signatories         = 
* {{flagicon|California}}&nbsp;[[California]]
* {{flagicon|District of Columbia}}&nbsp;[[District of Columbia]]
* {{flagicon|Hawaii}}&nbsp;[[Hawaii]]
* {{flagicon|Illinois}}&nbsp;[[Illinois]]
* {{flagicon|Maryland}}&nbsp;[[Maryland]]
* {{flagicon|Massachusetts}}&nbsp;[[Massachusetts]]
* {{flagicon|New Jersey}}&nbsp;[[New Jersey]]
* {{flagicon|New York}}&nbsp;[[New York (state)|New York]]
* {{flagicon|Rhode Island}}&nbsp;[[Rhode Island]]
* {{flagicon|Vermont}}&nbsp;[[Vermont]]
* {{flagicon|Washington}}&nbsp;[[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]]
| depositor           = 
| language            = 
| wikisource          = Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
}}

The '''National Popular Vote Interstate Compact''' ('''NPVIC''') is an agreement among several [[U.S. state]]s and the [[District of Columbia]] to award all their respective [[Electoral College (United States)|electoral votes]] to whichever [[United States presidential election|presidential candidate]] wins the overall [[plurality voting system|popular vote]] in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.<ref>{{cite web|title=National Popular Vote|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/national-popular-vote.aspx|website=National Conference of State Legislatures|publisher=NCSL|accessdate=November 9, 2015|date=March 11, 2015}}</ref><ref name=CtEC>{{cite journal|last1=Brody|first1=Michael|title=Circumventing the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under the Compact Clause|journal=Legislation and Policy Brief|date=February 17, 2013|volume=5|issue=1|pages=33, 35|url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=lpb|accessdate=September 11, 2014|publisher=Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law}}</ref> {{As of|2016}}<!--Please do not remove "as of" template; it is used to mark potentially dated statements for maintenance-->, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to {{percent|165|538|1}} of the total Electoral College vote, and {{percent|165|270|1}} of the 270 votes needed for it to have [[legal force]].

==Mechanism==
Proposed in the form of an [[interstate compact]], the agreement would [[Coming into force|go into effect]] among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to presidential electors associated with the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, the winner of the national popular vote would always win the presidency by always securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.

The compact would modify the way participating states implement [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Method of choosing electors|Article II, Section 1, Clause 2]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]], which requires each [[State legislature (United States)|state legislature]] to define a method to appoint its electors to vote in the Electoral College.  The Constitution does not mandate any particular legislative scheme for selecting electors, and instead vests state legislatures with the [[plenary power|exclusive power]] to choose how to allocate its own electors.<ref name=CtEC/><ref>McPherson v. Blacker {{ussc|146|1|1892}}</ref>  States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades. Today, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) award all their electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes statewide.

==Motivation behind the compact==
{{See also2|[[Electoral College (United States)#Contemporary issues|Contemporary issues and criticism of the Electoral College]]}}
[[File:Support For Direct Popular Vote.png|thumb|120px|right|Source: ''[[The Washington Post]]'', [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/post-kaiser-harvard-topline.pdf 2007 poll].]]
Under current state laws, a presidential candidate could lose (and has) the popular vote nationally but still win the presidency<ref name=RIyes>{{cite web|url=http://www.turnto10.com/story/22827328/ri-joins-national-popular-vote-electoral-compact|publisher=NBC10|title=RI joins national popular vote electoral compact|year=2013|accessdate=July 14, 2013}}</ref>
Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority of Americans support the idea of a popular vote for President. A 2007 poll found that 72% favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election, including 78% of [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]], 60% of [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]], and 73% of [[independent (voter)|independent voters]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/post-kaiser-harvard-topline.pdf |title=Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University: Survey of Political Independents |accessdate=June 11, 2008|format=PDF | work=The Washington Post}}</ref>  Polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a direct vote.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/2323/Americans-Historically-Favored-Changing-Way-Presidents-Elected.aspx |title=Americans Have Historically Favored Changing Way Presidents are Elected |publisher=Gallup |accessdate=June 11, 2008 |date=November 10, 2000}}</ref>  Reasons behind the compact include:

* The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of [[United States presidential election, 1824|1824]], [[United States presidential election, 1876|1876]], [[United States presidential election, 1888|1888]], [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000]], and [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016]]. In the 2000 election, the outcome was decided by 528 votes in Florida.
* The Electoral College system effectively forces candidates to focus disproportionately on a small percentage of pivotal [[swing states]], while sidelining the rest.  A study by [[FairVote]] reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states received very little attention.  The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV [[campaign advertising|advertising]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fairvote.org/presidential/?page=1677 |title=Who Picks the President? |publisher=FairVote |accessdate=June 11, 2008}}</ref>  This means that swing state issues receive more attention, while issues important to other states are largely ignored.<ref name=NYEd>{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/opinion/14tue1.html |title=Drop Out of the College |work=New York Times |date=March 14, 2006 |accessdate=June 11, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5628615 |title=Electoral College is outdated |work=Denver Post |date=April 9, 2007 |accessdate=June 11, 2008}}</ref><ref name=HillKee>{{cite web |url=http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/700 |title=The Electoral College, Mobilization, and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election |author=Hill, David |author2=McKee, Seth C.
|work=American Politics Research |year=2005 |pages=33:700–725 |accessdate=June 11, 2008}}</ref>
* The Electoral College system tends to decrease [[voter turnout]] in states without close races. Voters living outside the swing states have a greater certainty of which candidate is likely to win their state. This knowledge of the probable outcome decreases their incentive to vote.<ref name=NYEd/><ref name=HillKee/>  A report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004]] voter turnout in competitive swing states grew by 6.3% from the [[United States presidential election, 2000|previous presidential election]], compared to an increase of only 3.8% in noncompetitive states.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.american.edu/ia/cdem/csae/pdfs/csae041104.pdf |title=Committee for the Study of the American Electorate |date=November 4, 2004 |accessdate=June 12, 2008|format=PDF}}</ref>  A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the 10 closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country—a 17% gap.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Youth_Voting_72-04.pdf |title=The Youth Vote 2004 |author=Lopez, Mark Hugo |author2=Kirby, Emily |author3=Sagoff, Jared  |date=July 2005 |accessdate=June 12, 2008|format=PDF}}</ref>

==Debate==

The project has been supported by editorials in many newspapers, including the ''[[New York Times]]'',<ref name=NYEd/> the  ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'', the  ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'',<ref>{{cite news |url=https://caclean.org/problem/latimes_2006-06-05.php |title=States Join Forces Against Electoral College |work=Los Angeles Times |date=June 5, 2006 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> the ''[[Boston Globe]]'',<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/02/18/a_fix_for_the_electoral_college/ |title=A fix for the Electoral College |work=Boston Globe |date=February 18, 2008 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> and the ''[[Minneapolis Star Tribune]]'',<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/minneapolisstartribune.php |title=How to drop out of the Electoral College: There's a way to ensure top vote-getter becomes president |work=Minneapolis Star Tribune |date=March 27, 2006 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the ''[[Honolulu Star-Bulletin]]''.<ref name=Hono/> An article by [[Pierre S. du Pont, IV]], a former [[governor of Delaware]], in the opinion section of the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''<ref name=Pont>{{cite news|first=Pete |last=du Pont |title=Trash the 'Compact' |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008855 |work=Wall Street Journal |date=August 29, 2006 |accessdate=February 1, 2012 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20091001064458/http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008855 |archivedate=October 1, 2009 }}</ref> has called the project an urban power grab that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run.  A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12542 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718153909/http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12542 |archivedate=July 18, 2011 |title=National Popular Vote Compact Suggested Resource List }}</ref>

Some of the major points of debate are detailed below:

===Campaign focus===
{| class="wikitable floatright"
|- style="font-size: 86%;"
| width=200px | Advertising spending and campaign visits by both major-party candidates during the final stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign (Sept. 26 – Nov. 2, 2004)<ref>{{cite web | title = Who Picks the President? | publisher = FairVote | url = http://archive.fairvote.org/media/research/who_picks_president.pdf | format = PDF | accessdate =November 9, 2011 }}</ref>
----
Spending on advertising per capita: {{columns-list|2|{{unbulleted list
|{{color sample|#FFFFFF}} < $0.50
|{{color sample|#7fff7f}} $0.50–$1.00
|{{color sample|#00ff00}} $1.00–$2.00
|{{color sample|#007e00}} $2.00–$4.00 
|{{color sample|#000000}} > $4.00 
}}}}
----
Campaign visits per 1 million residents: {{columns-list|2|{{unbulleted list
|{{color sample|#FFFFFF}} No visits
|{{color sample|#FF7FFF}} 0–1.0
|{{color sample|#fd00fd}} 1.0–3.0
|{{color sample|#7e007e}} 3.0–9.0 
|{{color sample|#000000}} > 9.0 
}}}}
| [[File:Spending-and-visits.svg|220px]]
|}

Under the current system, campaign focus – in terms of spending, visits, and attention paid to regional or state issues – is largely limited to the few swing states whose electoral outcomes are competitive, with politically "solid" states mostly ignored by the campaigns. The maps to the right illustrate the amount spent on advertising and the number of visits to each state, relative to population, by the two major-party candidates in the last stretch of the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 presidential campaign]]. Supporters of the compact contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign with equal effort for votes in competitive and non-competitive states alike.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-the-national-popular-vote-plan|title=National Popular Vote|work=FairVote}}</ref> Critics of the compact argue that candidates would have less incentive to focus on states with smaller populations or fewer urban areas, and would thus be unmotivated to address rural issues.<ref name=Pont/><ref name=NPVmemo>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/7-Page-NPV-Memo-V33-2007-6-1.pdf |title=National Popular Vote |date=June 1, 2007|accessdate=July 13, 2008 |publisher=National Popular Vote|format=PDF}}</ref>

===Close elections and election fraud===
Opponents of the compact have raised concerns about election fraud. In his article, [[Pierre S. du Pont, IV|Pete du Pont]] argues that in 2000, "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. 'Finding' three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing...". However, National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would in fact reduce the likelihood of a close election and decrease the feasibility of fraud.  They contend that the large pool of 122 million votes spread across the country would make a close or fraudulent outcome much less likely than under the current system, in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small vote margin in any one of the fifty-one statewide tallies.<ref name=Pont/><ref name=NPVmemo/>

The NPVIC does not include any provision for a nationwide recount in the event that the vote tally is in dispute. While each state has established rules governing recounts in the event of a close or disputed statewide tally,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fairvote.org/recounts|title=Statewide Election Recounts, 2000-2009|work=FairVote}}</ref> it is possible for the national vote to be close without there being a close result in any one state. Proponents of the compact argue that the need for a recount would be less likely under a national popular vote than under the current electoral system.<ref>[http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m3.php 3. Myths about Recounts], [http://nationalpopularvote.com nationalpopularvote.com]</ref>

===Populous states versus low-population states===
[[File:State population per electoral vote.png|thumb|right|300px|State population per electoral vote in the 2012 presidential election]]
There is some debate over whether the Electoral College favors small- or large-population states. Those who argue that the College favors low-population states point out that such states have proportionally more electoral votes relative to their populations, because each state's number of electors is greater by two than its (proportionally allocated) number of Congressional representatives.<ref name=Hono>{{cite news |url=http://archives.starbulletin.com/2007/04/29/editorial/editorial02.html |title=Electoral College should be maintained |work=Honolulu Star-Bulletin |accessdate=June 12, 2008 |date=April 29, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/bbo_11-6.html |title=David Broder, on PBS Online News Hour's Campaign Countdown |date=November 6, 2000 |accessdate=June 12, 2008}}</ref> In the most populous state, California, this results in an electoral clout 16% smaller than a purely proportional allocation would produce, whereas the least-populous states, with three electors, hold a voting power 143% greater than they would under purely proportional allocation. The proposed compact would give equal weight to each voter's ballot, regardless of what state they live in. Others, however, believe that since most states award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all system, the potential of populous states to shift greater numbers of electoral votes gives them more actual clout.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/id/1006680 |work=Slate.com |title=Faithless Elector Watch: Gimme "Equal Protection" |author=Timothy Noah |date=December 13, 2000 |accessdate=June 12, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300080360 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606185249/http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300080360 |archivedate=2011-06-06|first=Lawrence D. |last=Longley |author2=Peirce, Neal |title=Electoral College Primer 2000 |publisher=Yale University Press |year=1999}}{{dead link|date=August 2011|url=http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300080360}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa&ci=9780195307511 |first=Sanford |last=Levinson |title=Our Undemocratic Constitution |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080328222321/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa |archivedate=March 28, 2008 }}</ref>

===Possible partisan advantage===
Some supporters and opponents of the NPVIC have based their position at least in part on a perceived partisan advantage of the compact. Governor [[Pierre S. du Pont IV|Du Pont]], a Republican, has argued that the compact would be an "urban power grab" and benefit Democrats.<ref name="Pont"/> However, [[Saul Anuzis]] of the Republican National Committee wrote that Republicans "need" the compact, citing what he believes to be the center-right nature of the American electorate.<ref name=Anuzis>{{cite web |title= ANUZIS: Conservatives need the popular vote |first=Saul |last=Anuzis |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/26/anuzis-conservatives-need-the-popular-vote/ |work=Washington Times |date=May 26, 2006 |accessdate=June 3, 2011}}</ref> ''[[The New Yorker|New Yorker]]'' essayist [[Hendrik Hertzberg]] maintains that the compact would benefit neither party, noting that historically both Republicans and Democrats have been successful in winning the popular vote in presidential elections.<ref name=Hertzberg>{{cite web |title= Misguided "objectivity" on n.p.v |first=Hendrik |last=Hertzberg |url= http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2011/06/misguided-objectivity-on-npv.html|work=New Yorker |date=June 13, 2011 |accessdate=June 21, 2011}}</ref> In the last four elections, Democrats enjoyed an advantage from the electoral vote system in three elections (2012, 2008, and 2004), whereas in 2000 the electoral system provided the Republicans with an advantage.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/ | work=The New York Times | first=Nate | last=Silver | title=As Nation and Parties Change, Republicans Are at an Electoral College Disadvantage | date=November 8, 2012}}</ref><ref>In 2012, the tipping point state – which put the winner over 270 electoral votes – was Colorado, which voted Democratic by 5.4% (opposed to a 3.7% national margin), a 1.7% Democratic advantage. In 2008, the tipping point state was also Colorado, which voted Democratic by 8.9%, compared to a 7.2% national margin – a 1.7% Democratic advantage. In 2004, the tipping point state was Ohio, which voted Republican by 2.1%, compared to a national margin of 2.4% – a 0.3% Democratic advantage. In 2000, the tipping point state was (famously) Florida, which was effectively tied, while the nation voted Democratic by a 0.5%  margin – a 0.5% Republican advantage.</ref>

===Relevance of state-level majorities===
Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] of California and [[Linda Lingle]] of Hawaii, both in 2007, objected to the compact on the grounds that it could require their states' electoral votes to be awarded to a candidate who did not win a majority in their state. (Both states have since enacted laws joining the compact.) Supporters of the compact counter that under a national popular vote system, state-level majorities are irrelevant; in any state, votes cast contribute to the nationwide tally, which determines the winner. The preferences of individual voters are thus paramount, while state-level majorities are an obsolete intermediary measure.<ref>[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_37_cfa_20070503_145220_sen_floor.html SB-37, quoted on page 8]</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://archives.starbulletin.com/2007/04/24/news/briefs.html |work=Honolulu Star-Bulletin |title=NewsWatch |date=April 24, 2007 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=What's Wrong With the Popular Vote? |url=http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6ddf1e11-986b-4a18-ab2d-dac2925fbcaa |work=Hawaii Reporter |date=April 11, 2007 |accessdate=July 13, 2008 |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20080110014711/http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6ddf1e11-986b-4a18-ab2d-dac2925fbcaa |archivedate = January 10, 2008}}</ref>

===Legality===
Supporters believe the compact is legal under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the plenary power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit: "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…" Proponents of this position include law professors [[Jamie Raskin]], who co-sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, and [[Akhil Reed Amar]] and [[Vikram Amar]], who were the compact's original proponents.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legalaffairs.org/poll/ |title=Who Are the Top 20 Legal Thinkers in America? |accessdate=July 4, 2008 |work=Legal Affairs }}</ref>

A 2008 assessment by law school student David Gringer suggested that the NPVIC could potentially violate the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], but the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] in 2012 precleared California's entry into the compact under Section 5 of the Act, concluding that the compact had no adverse impact on California's racial minority voters.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Why the National Popular Vote Plan Is the Wrong Way to Abolish the Electoral College |url=http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/1/Gringer.pdf |first=David|last=Gringer |journal=Columbia Law Review |accessdate=July 13, 2008 |year=2008 |volume=108 |issue=1 |format=PDF}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fairvote.org/assets/NewFolder/Chapter-188-approval-letter-from-DOJ.pdf |title=Letter |format=PDF|work=U.S. Department of Justice|publisher=[http://www.fairvote.org fairvote.org]}}</ref> The DOJ's decision is consistent with the argument of FairVote's [[Rob Richie]] that the NPVIC "treats all voters equally."<ref>{{cite web |title=Democracy's Revenge? Bush v. Gore and the National Popular Vote |url=http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/comments/2006/060516.php |first=Peter|last=Shane |publisher=Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University |date=May 16, 2006 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref>

Gringer also assailed the NPVIC as "an [[end run|end-run]] around the constitutional amendment process." Raskin has responded: "the term 'end run' has no known constitutional or legal meaning. More to the point, to the extent that we follow its meaning in real usage, the 'end run' is a perfectly lawful play."<ref>{{cite journal |title=Neither the Red States nor the Blue States but the United States: The National Popular Vote and American Political Democracy |url=http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/elj.2008.7304 |first=Jamie|last=Raskin |journal=[[Election Law Journal]] |publisher=Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. |accessdate=December 6, 2009 |year=2008 |volume=7 |issue=3 |format=PDF |doi=10.1089/elj.2008.7304 |page=188}}</ref> Raskin argues that the adoption of the term "end run" by the compact's opponents is a tacit acknowledgment of the plan's legality.

Ian Drake, an assistant professor of Political Science and another critic of the compact, has argued that the constitution both requires and prohibits Congressional approval of the compact.  In Drake's view, only a constitutional amendment could make the compact valid.<ref name ="Drake"/> Authors Michael Brody,<ref>[http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=lpb Circumventing the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under the Compact Clause]</ref> Jennifer Hendricks,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1030385|title=Popular Election of the President: Using or Abusing the Electoral College?|publisher=}}</ref> and Bradley Turflinger<ref>{{cite journal |title =Fifty Republics and the National Popular Vote: How the Guarantee Clause Should Protect States Striving for Equal Protection in Presidential Elections |url=http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=vulr |first=Bradley |last=Turflinger |journal=Valparaiso University Law Review |publisher=Valco Scholar |accessdate=September 25, 2012 |year=2011 |volume=45 |issue=3 |format=PDF |pages=793–843}}</ref> have examined the compact and concluded that the NPVIC, if successfully enacted, would pass constitutional muster.

It is possible that Congress would have to approve the NPVIC before it could go into effect. [[Compact Clause|Article I, Section 10]] of the US Constitution states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." However, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] has ruled in ''[[Virginia v. Tennessee]]'', {{ussc|148|503|1893}}, and in several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.<ref>{{cite book |title=Every Vote Equal |chapter=Background on Interstate Compacts |chapterurl=http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVE-CH-5.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=June 15, 2008}}</ref> ''Every Vote Equal'' argues that the compact could never encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. Derek Muller argues that the NPVIC would nonetheless affect the federal system in such a way that it would require Congressional approval,<ref name="muller">{{cite journal |last=Muller|first=Derek T. |title=The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact |journal=[[Election Law Journal]] |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=372–393 |publisher=Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. |url=http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2007.6403 |doi=10.1089/elj.2007.6403 |date=November 2007 |accessdate=June 15, 2008}}</ref> while Ian Drake argues that Congress is actually prohibited under the Constitution from granting approval to the NPVIC.<ref name ="Drake">{{cite journal |last=Drake |first=Ian |date=September 20, 2013 |title=Federal Roadblocks: The Constitution and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact |url= |journal=The Journal of Federalism |publisher=Oxford Journals |accessdate=10 January 2014}}</ref> NPVIC supporters dispute this conclusion and state they plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states.<ref name="National Popular Vote">{{cite web | author = National Popular Vote Inc. |title = Interstate Compacts and Congressional Consent | url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/section.php?s=16|accessdate=March 30, 2014}}</ref>

==History==

===Proposals to abolish the Electoral college by amendment===
Several proposals to abolish the Electoral College by [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|constitutional amendment]] have been introduced in Congress over the decades. These efforts have, however, been hampered by the fact that a [[supermajority|two-thirds]] vote in both the [[U.S. House of Representatives|House]] and [[United States Senate|Senate]] are required to send an amendment to the states, where ratification by three-fourths of the [[State legislature (United States)|State legislature]]s or by conventions in three fourths of the states is required for it to become operative.

====Bayh–Celler Amendment====
The amendment which came closest to success was the Bayh–Celler proposal during the [[91st United States Congress|91st Congress]]. Introduced by Representative [[Emanuel Celler]] of New York as House [[Joint Resolution]] 681, it would have replaced the Electoral College with a simpler plurality system based on the national popular vote. Under this system, the pair of candidates who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency respectively, providing they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held, in which the choice of president and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest numbers of votes in the first election. The word "pair" was defined as "two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President."<ref>{{cite news|title=Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting|work=The New York Times|date=April 30, 1969|page=21}}</ref> Celler's proposed constitutional amendment passed in the House of Representatives by a 338–70 vote in 1969, but was [[filibustered]] in the Senate, where it died.

====Every Vote Counts Amendment====
A joint resolution to amend the Constitution, providing for the popular election of the president and vice president under a new electoral system was introduced in 2005 by Representative [[Gene Green]] of Texas. In 2009, at the start of the [[111th United States Congress|111th Congress]], Green introduced {{USBill|111|H.J.Res.|9}}, commonly known as the [[Every Vote Counts Amendment]]. Two other joint resolutions were proposed in the 111th Congress to amend the Constitution to establish a national popular vote for the president and vice-president. Sponsored by Congressman [[Jesse Jackson, Jr.]] of Illinois, {{USBill|111|H.J.Res.|36}} would require a majority vote for president. Sponsored by Senator [[Bill Nelson]] of Florida, {{USBill|111|SJRes|4}} would leave the method of election to an [[Act of Congress]]. Each of these measures died in committee.

===Academic plan===
In 2001, Northwestern University law professor Robert Bennett suggested a plan in an academic publication to implement a National Popular Vote through a mechanism that would ''embrace'' state legislatures' power to appoint electors, rather than resist that power.<ref name="Bennett">{{cite web|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=261057|title=Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment|publisher=}}</ref>  By coordinating, states constituting a majority of the Electoral College could effectively implement a popular vote.

Law professors (and brothers) [[Akhil Reed Amar]] and [[Vikram Amar]] defended the constitutionality of such a plan.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/amar/20011228.html |title=HOW TO ACHIEVE DIRECT NATIONAL ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION: Part Three Of A Three-part Series On The 2000 Election And The Electoral College |publisher=Findlaw |year=2001 |accessdate=March 16, 2009}}</ref>  They proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be [[trigger law|triggered]] once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.

The academic plan uses two constitutional features:
* [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Method of choosing electors|Presidential Electors Clause]] in Article 2, section 1, clause 2 which gives each state the power to determine the manner in which its electors are selected.
* [[Compact Clause]], Article I, section 10, clause 3 under which it creates an enforceable compact.

The Amar brothers noted that such a plan could be enacted by the passage of laws in as few as eleven states and would probably not require Congressional approval, though this is not certain (see [[#Debate|Debate]] above).

===Organization and advocacy===
{{refimprove section|date=January 2013}}
In 2006, [[John Koza]], a computer science professor at Stanford, was the lead author of ''[[Every Vote Equal]]'', a book that makes a detailed case for his plan for an interstate compact to establish National Popular Vote.<ref name = "Hertzberg2">{{cite news |url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306ta_talk_hertzberg |title=Count 'Em |work=New Yorker |date=March 6, 2006 |accessdate=June 21, 2011}}</ref> (Koza had previously had exposure to interstate compacts from his work with state lottery commissions after inventing the [[Scratchcard|scratch-off lottery ticket]].) That year, Koza, Barry Fadem and others formed [[National Popular Vote Inc.|National Popular Vote]], a non-profit group to promote the legislation. The group has a transpartisan advisory committee including former US Senators [[Jake Garn]], [[Birch Bayh]], and [[David Durenberger]], and former Representatives [[John B. Anderson|John Anderson]], [[John Hall Buchanan, Jr.|John Buchanan]], and [[Tom Campbell (California politician)|Tom Campbell]].

By the time of the group's opening news conference in February 2006, the proposed interstate compact had been introduced in the Illinois legislature. With backing from National Popular Vote, the NPVIC legislation was introduced in five additional state legislatures in the 2006 session. It passed in the Colorado Senate and in both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]].

===Adoption===
[[File:NPVIC participants.svg|thumb|480px|History of state participation in the NPVIC {{as of|2016|04|lc=y}}<!--Please do not remove "as of" template; it is used to mark potentially dated statements for maintenance-->]]
In 2007, NPVIC legislation was introduced in 42 states. It was passed by at least one legislative chamber in [[Arkansas]],<ref name="Arkansas">{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=AR
|publisher=National Popular Vote, Inc.
|title=Arkansas
|year=2009
|accessdate=June 6, 2008}}</ref> [[California]],<ref name="CA08">{{cite web |url=http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_37&sess=0708&house=B&site=sen
|publisher=California Legislature
|title=Complete Bill History (SB 37)
|year=2007
|accessdate=December 23, 2010}}</ref> [[Colorado]],<ref name="CO07">{{cite web |url=http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/csl.nsf/billsummary/2B2373A5793D58768725725700645078?opendocument
|title=Summarized History for Bill Number SB07-046 |publisher=Colorado Legislature
|year=2007 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> [[Illinois]],<ref name="Illinois">{{cite web
|url=http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1685&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=30508&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95
|publisher=Illinois General Assembly |title=Bill Status of HB1685
|year=2008 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> [[New Jersey]],<ref name="NJ">{{cite web
|url=http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/Default.asp
|publisher=New Jersey Legislature
|title=Bill Search (Bill A4225 from Session 2006–07) |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> [[North Carolina]],<ref name=NC07Sen>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=s954 |publisher=North Carolina |title=Senate Bill 954 |year=2008 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> [[Maryland]], and [[Hawaii]].<ref name="Hawaii2007">{{cite web
|url=http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2007/status/SB1956.htm
|title=Hawaii SB 1956, 2007
|accessdate=June 6, 2008}}</ref> Maryland became the first state to join the compact when Governor [[Martin O'Malley]] signed it into law on April 10, 2007.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18053715/ |title=Maryland sidesteps electoral college
|date=April 11, 2007 |publisher=MSNBC
|accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref>

[[New Jersey]] became the second state to enter the compact when Governor [[Jon Corzine|Jon S. Corzine]] signed the bill on January 13, 2008.<ref name="NPV-NJ">{{cite news |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/13/politics/main3706884.shtml |title=New Jersey Rejects Electoral College |date=January 13, 2008 |work=CBS News |publisher=CBS |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref> [[Illinois]] became the third state to join when Governor [[Rod Blagojevich]] signed it into law on April 7, 2008<ref name="Illinois"/>
and Hawaii became the fourth on May 1, 2008, after the legislature overrode a second veto from the governor.<ref name="ha-senate">{{cite web|url=http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=SB2898 |title=Hawaii SB 2898, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

[[Washington (state)|Washington]] became the fifth state to join when Governor [[Christine Gregoire]] signed it into law on April 28, 2009.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=WA|title=Progress in the States|publisher=nationalpopularvote.com}}</ref>  [[Massachusetts]] became the sixth state to join when Governor [[Deval Patrick]] signed it into law on August 4, 2010.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MA|title=Progress in the States|publisher=nationalpopularvote.com}}</ref> The [[District of Columbia]] entered into the compact when the bill was signed by Mayor [[Adrian Fenty]] on October 12, 2010. (Neither chamber of Congress objected to the passage of the bill during the mandatory review period of 30 legislative days following that date, thus allowing the District's action to proceed.)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=DC|title=Progress in the States|publisher=nationalpopularvote.com}}</ref>

[[Vermont]] joined the compact when Governor [[Peter Shumlin]] signed it into law on April 22, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=VT|title=Progress in the States|publisher=nationalpopularvote.com}}</ref> California entered the compact on August 8, 2011, with Governor [[Jerry Brown]]'s signature.<ref name="CA11B">{{cite web|url=http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17160|title=Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. - Newsroom|publisher=}}</ref> Rhode Island entered the compact on July 12, 2013, with Governor [[Lincoln Chafee]]'s signature.<ref name="S346">{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=RI|title=Progress in the States|publisher=nationalpopularvote.com}}</ref> On April 15, 2014, New York entered the compact with a bipartisan vote in the NY assembly and Governor [[Andrew Cuomo]]'s signature.<ref name=NYJoin><[http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/04152014-national-popular-vote-compact]></ref>

NPVIC legislation has been introduced in all 50 states.<ref name=progress /> States where only one chamber has adopted the legislation are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Oregon. In Colorado the legislation has passed in both chambers (in different sessions). Bills seeking to repeal the compact in Maryland, New Jersey and Washington have failed.

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"
|+ Jurisdictions enacting law to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
|-
! No. !! Jurisdiction !! Current<br />Electoral<br />votes (EV) !! Date adopted
|-
| 1 || [[Maryland]] || 10 || {{dts|April 10, 2007}}
|-
| 2 || [[New Jersey]] || 14 || {{dts|January 13, 2008}}
|-
| 3 || [[Illinois]] || 20 || {{dts|April 7, 2008}}
|-
| 4 || [[Hawaii]] || 4 || {{dts|May 1, 2008}}
|-
| 5 || [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]] || 12 || {{dts|April 28, 2009}}
|-
| 6 || [[Massachusetts]] || 11 || {{dts|August 4, 2010}}
|-
| 7 || [[District of Columbia]] || 3 || {{dts|December 7, 2010}}
|-
| 8 || [[Vermont]] || 3 || {{dts|April 22, 2011}}
|-
| 9 || [[California]] || 55 || {{dts|August 8, 2011}}
|-
| 10 || [[Rhode Island]] || 4 || {{dts|July 12, 2013}}
|-
| 11 || [[New York (state)|New York]] || 29 || {{dts|April 15, 2014}}
|- class="sortbottom"
|colspan=2 |'''Total'''  ||colspan=2| '''165''' ''({{percent|165|270|1}} of the 270 EV needed)''
|}

===Prospects===
[[Psephologist]] [[Nate Silver]] wrote that, as swing states are unlikely to support a compact that reduces their influence, the compact cannot succeed without adoption by "[[Red states and blue states|red states]]".<ref name=538comment>{{cite web|last1=Silver|first1=Nate|authorlink1=Nate Silver|title=Why a Plan to Circumvent the Electoral College Is Probably Doomed|url=http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-a-plan-to-circumvent-the-electoral-college-is-probably-doomed/|website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]|publisher=[[ESPN]]|accessdate=17 July 2014|date=17 April 2014}}</ref> {{as of|2016}}<!--Please do not remove "as of" template; it is used to mark potentially dated statements for maintenance-->, all the states that have adopted the compact are "[[Red states and blue states|blue states]]", ranking within the 14 strongest vote shares for Barack Obama in the [[2012 U.S. Presidential Election|2012 Presidential Election]].

==Bills==

===Currently active bills===
The table below lists state bills to join the NPVIC that are currently pending ({{as of|2016|November|09|lc=y|df=US}}<!--Please do not remove "as of" template; it is used to mark potentially dated statements for maintenance-->).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/elections-legislation-database.aspx|title=Elections Legislation Database|publisher=[[National Conference of State Legislatures]]}}</ref> The "EVs" column indicates the number of electoral votes each state has.
<!-- to insert a new state, you can copy it from the other table; there you will also find a link to each state's legislative website -->
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! State
! EVs
! Session
! class="unsortable"| Bill(s)
! class="unsortable"| Lower house
! class="unsortable"| Upper house
! class="unsortable"| Executive
! Status
|-
| {{flag|Arizona}}
| style="text-align:right;"| 11
| 2016–17
| SB 1218
| —
| {{partial|in committee}}<ref>{{cite web|url=https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1218/2016
| publisher=LegiScan|title=Senate Bill 1218|year=2016|accessdate=November 9, 2016}}</ref>
| —
| {{partial|pending}}
|-
| {{flag|Michigan}}
| style="text-align:right;"| 16
| 2015–16
| SB 88
| —
| {{partial|in committee}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0088
| publisher=Michigan Legislature|title=Senate Bill 88|year=2015|accessdate=October 5, 2016}}</ref>
| —
| {{partial|pending}}
|-
| {{flag|Pennsylvania}}
| style="text-align:right;"| 20
| 2015–16
| HB 1542
| {{partial|in committee}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/bill_history.cfm?syear=2015&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=1542
| publisher=Pennsylvania General Assembly|title=HB 1542|year=2015|accessdate=October 5, 2016}}</ref>
| —
| —
| {{partial|pending}}
|}

===Bills in previous sessions===
The table below lists the status of past bills that received a floor vote in at least one chamber of the state's legislature. Bills which failed without a floor vote are not listed. The "EVs" column indicates the number of electoral votes the state had at the time the bill was introduced. This number may have changed since then due to [[United States congressional apportionment|reapportionment]] following the [[2010 United States Census|2010 Census]].

{| class="wikitable sortable" <!--Please comment out bills that did not receive a floor vote-->
|-
! State
! EVs
! Session
! class="unsortable"| Bill(s)
! class="unsortable"| Lower house
! class="unsortable"| Upper house
! class="unsortable"| Executive
! Status
|-
|rowspan=1|[[File:Flag of Arizona.svg|20px]] [[Arizona]]
|rowspan=1 style="text-align:right"| 11
| 2016
| HB 2456, SB 1165
| {{yes|passed}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/hb2456o.asp&Session_ID=115
| publisher=Arizona State Legislature|title=House Bill 2456|year=2016|accessdate=March 13, 2016}}</ref>
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/sb1165o.asp&Session_ID=115
| publisher=Arizona State Legislature|title=Senate Bill 1165|year=2016|accessdate=March 13, 2016}}</ref>
| _
| {{no|failed}}
|-
|rowspan=2|[[File:Flag of Arkansas.svg|20px]] [[Arkansas]]
|rowspan=2 style="text-align:right"| 6
| 2007
| HB 1703
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="Arkansas"/>
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name="Arkansas"/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2009
| HB 1339
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="AR09">{{cite web |url=http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1339 |title=Bill Status History |year=2009 |accessdate=February 14, 2009 |publisher=Arkansas State Legislature}}</ref>
|{{no|died in committee}}<ref name="AR09"/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
|rowspan=3|[[File:Flag of California.svg|20px]] [[California]]
|rowspan=3 style="text-align:right;"| 55
| 2005–06
| AB 2948
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="CA06">{{cite web |url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2901-2950/ab_2948_bill_20060930_history.html
| publisher=California Legislature
| title=Complete Bill History (AB 2948)
| year=2006
| accessdate=January 28, 2007}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed<ref name="CA06"/>}}
| {{no|vetoed<ref name="CA06"/>}}
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2007–08
| SB 37
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="CA08"/>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="CA08"/>
| {{no|vetoed}}<ref name="CA08"/>
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2011
| AB 459
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="CA11">{{cite web |url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_459_bill_20110808_history.html|title=Complete Bill History: A.B. No. 459|accessdate=August 9, 2011|publisher=California Legislature |year=2011}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="CA11"/>
| {{yes|signed}}<ref name="CA11B" />
| {{yes|law}}
|-
|rowspan=3|[[File:Flag of Colorado.svg|20px]] [[Colorado]]
|rowspan=3 style="text-align:right;"| 9
| 2006
| SB 06-223
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name="CO06">{{cite web |url=http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2006a/csl.nsf/billsummary/B8FDCF0ACAD0DE3687257131007F0795 |title=Summarized History for Bill Number SB06-223 |publisher=Colorado Legislature |year=2006 |accessdate=June 5, 2008}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2007
| SB 07-046
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name="CO07"/>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="CO07"/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2009
| HB 1299
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=CO09>{{cite web |url=http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/05/03/colorado-senate-kills-national-popular-vote-bill/ |title=Colorado Senate Kills National Popular Vote Bill |publisher=Ballot Access News |accessdate=May 3, 2011}}</ref>
| {{no|not voted on}}<ref name=CO09 />
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of Connecticut.svg|20px]] [[Connecticut]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 7
| 2009
| HB 6437
| {{yes|passed}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB06437&which_year=2009
| publisher= Connecticut General Assembly |title= HB 6437 |year=2009 |accessdate=March 16, 2011}}</ref>
| {{no|died in committee}}
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of Washington, D.C..svg|20px]] [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 3
| 2009–10
| B18-0769
| align=center bgcolor=#FFB colspan=2 {{yes|passed}}<ref name=DC10>{{cite web |url=http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/searchbylegislation.aspx | publisher = Council of the District of Columbia |title= Council of the District (Search for B18-0769) |year=2009 | accessdate=December 21, 2010}}</ref>
| {{yes|signed}}<ref name="DC10"/>
| {{yes|law}}
|-
|rowspan=2|[[File:Flag of Delaware.svg|20px]] [[Delaware]]
|rowspan=2 style="text-align:right;"| 3
| 2009–10
| HB 198
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="DE10">{{cite web |url=http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+198?Opendocument | publisher = Delaware General Assembly |title=House Bill No. 198 |year=2009 | accessdate=June 25, 2009}}</ref>
| {{no|not voted on}}<ref name="DE10"/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2011
| HB 55
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="DE11">{{cite web |url=http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+55 |title= House Bill No. 55 |publisher=Delaware General Assembly |year=2011 |accessdate=April 8, 2011}}</ref>
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name="DE11"/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
|rowspan=2|[[File:Flag of Hawaii.svg|20px]] [[Hawaii]]
|rowspan=2 style="text-align:right;"| 4
| 2007
| HB 234,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2007/status/HB234.htm |publisher=Hawaii Legislature |title=HB 234 |year=2007}}</ref> SB 1956
| {{yes|did not override veto}}<ref name="Hawaii2007"/>
| {{yes|overrode veto<ref name="Hawaii2007"/>}}
| {{no|vetoed<ref name="Hawaii2007"/>}}
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2008
| HB 3013, SB 2898
| {{yes|overrode veto}}<ref name="Hawaii2008">{{cite web |url=http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB3013 |publisher=Hawaii Legislature
|title=HB 3013 |year=2008}}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>
| {{yes|overrode veto}}<ref name="ha-senate"/>
| {{no|vetoed}}<ref name="ha-senate"/>
| {{yes|law}}
|-
| |[[File:Flag of Illinois.svg|20px]] [[Illinois]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 21
| 2007–08
| HB 858,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=858&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=28263&SessionID=51 |publisher=Illinois General Assembly |title=Bill Status of HB0858 |year=2008}}</ref>  HB 1685, SB 78
| {{yes|passed<ref name="Illinois"/>}}
| {{yes|passed<ref name="Illinois"/>}}
| {{yes|signed<ref name="Illinois"/>}}
| {{yes|law}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of Louisiana.svg|20px]] [[Louisiana]]
| align="right" | 8
| 2012
| HB 1095, SB 705
| {{no|failed}}<ref name="LA12house">{{cite web |url=http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid=12RS&billid=HB1095 |publisher=Louisiana Legislature |title=HB 1095 |year=2012| accessdate=May 1, 2012}}</ref>
| {{no|not voted on}}<ref name="LA12senate">{{cite web |url=http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid=12RS&billid=SB705 |publisher=Louisiana Legislature |title=SB 705 |year=2012| accessdate=April 8, 2012}}</ref>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
|rowspan=2|[[File:Flag of Maine.svg|20px]] [[Maine]]
|rowspan=2 style="text-align:right;"| 4
| 2007–08
| LD 1744
| {{no|indef. postponed}}<ref name="Maine">{{cite web |url=http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280024656 |title=Status of LD 1744 |publisher=Maine Legislature |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="BA-ME">{{cite web |url=http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/04/02/maine-senate-passes-national-popular-vote-plan/ |work=Ballot Access News |title=Maine Senate passes National Popular Vote plan |date=April 2, 2008}}</ref>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2013–14
| LD 511, S 201
| {{no|failed 60–85}}<ref name="Maine2014">{{cite web |url=http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280047031 |title=Status of LD 511 |publisher=Maine Legislature |accessdate=April 2, 2014}}</ref>
| {{no|failed 17–17}}<ref name="Maine2014"/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of Maryland.svg|20px]] [[Maryland]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 10
| 2007
| HB 148, SB 634
| {{yes|passed<ref name="MD">{{cite web |url=http://mlis.state.md.us/2007rs/billfile/HB0148.htm |publisher=Maryland |title=House Bill 148 |year=2007 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref>}}
| {{yes|passed<ref name="MD"/>}}
| {{yes|signed<ref name="MD"/>}}
| {{yes|law}}
|-
|rowspan=2|[[File:Flag of Massachusetts.svg|20px]] [[Massachusetts]]
|rowspan=2 style="text-align:right;"| 12
| 2007–08
| HB 4952, SB 445<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/s00445.htm |publisher=Massachusetts Legislature |title=Senate, No. 445 |year=2008 |accessdate=July 14, 2008}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=Mass08>{{cite web |url=http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/h04952.htm |publisher=Massachusetts Legislature |title=House, No. 4952 |year=2008 |accessdate=July 23, 2008}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=Mass08S>{{cite web |url=http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/31/massachusetts-national-popular-vote-bill/ |publisher=Ballot-Access.org |title=Senate |year=2008 |accessdate=July 31, 2008}}</ref>
| {{no|not sent}}<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/01/legislature_agrees_to_back_pike_finances/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7 |title=Legislature agrees to back Pike finances |date=August 1, 2008 |accessdate=August 11, 2008
| work=The Boston Globe |first=Matt |last=Viser}} Although the bill passed both houses, the senate vote to send the bill to the governor did not take place before the end of the legislative session.</ref>
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2009–10
| H 4156
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=Mass10>{{cite web |url= http://www.mass.gov/legis/186history/h04156.htm |publisher=Massachusetts General Court |title=House, No. 4156 |year=2010 |accessdate=June 11, 2010}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/16/winner_take_all_bill_is_okd_by_state_senate/ | work=The Boston Globe | title=Winner-take-all bill is OK'd by state Senate | first=Travis | last=Andersen | date=July 16, 2010}}</ref>
| {{yes|signed}}
| {{yes|law}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of Michigan.svg|20px]] [[Michigan]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 17
| 2007–08
| HB 6610
| {{yes|passed 65–36}}<ref name=MI08>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vmautibsxql4axn51jy0mqiq))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2008-HB-6610&query=on |publisher=Michigan Legislature |title=House Bill 6610 (2008) |year=2008 |accessdate=December 11, 2008}}</ref>
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name=MI08/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of Minnesota.svg|20px]] [[Minnesota]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 10
| 2013–14
| HF799, SF585
| {{no|failed 62–71}}<ref name="MN2013h">{{cite web |url=https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF0799&ssn=0&y=2013&ls=88 | title=HF0799 Status in House for Legislative Session 88 |year=2013 |accessdate=April 11, 2013}}</ref>
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name="MN2013s">{{cite web |url=https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=SF585&y=2013&ssn=0&b=senate | title=SF 585 Status in the Senate for the 88th Legislature (2013–2014) |year=2013 |accessdate=April 11, 2013}}</ref>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
|[[File:Flag of Montana.svg|20px]] [[Montana]]
| align="right" | 3
| 2007
| SB 290
| —
| {{no|failed}}<ref name="MT">{{cite web |url=http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws07/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&P_BILL_NO=290&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ= |publisher=Montana Legislature |title=Detailed Bill Information (SB290) |year=2007 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of Nebraska.svg|20px]] [[Nebraska]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 5
| 2014
| LB1058
| align=center bgcolor=#FFB colspan=2 {{no|passed committee, not voted on}}<ref name="NE2014">{{cite web |url=http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=21913 | title=LB 1058 Status in Nebraska Legislature |year=2014 |accessdate=April 18, 2014}}</ref>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of Nevada.svg|20px]] [[Nevada]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 5
| 2009
| AB 413
| {{yes|passed}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Reports/history.cfm?ID=801|title=AB413|publisher=leg.state.nv.us}}</ref>
| {{no|died in committee}}
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of New Jersey.svg|20px]] [[New Jersey]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 15
| 2006–07
| A 4225, S 2695
| {{yes|passed<ref name="NJ"/>}}
| {{yes|passed<ref name="NJ"/>}}
| {{yes|signed}}<ref name="NJ"/>
| {{yes|law}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of New Mexico.svg|20px]] [[New Mexico]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 5
| 2009
| HB 383
| {{yes|passed}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session.aspx?Chamber=H&LegType=B&LegNo=383&year=09 |publisher=New Mexico Legislature |year=2009 |accessdate=February 14, 2009 |title=HB383}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/02/20/new-mexico-house-passes-national-popular-vote-bill/|title=New Mexico House Passes National Popular Vote Bill|publisher=ballot-access.org}}</ref>
| {{no|not voted on}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/03/21/new-mexico-legislature-adjourns-without-passing-national-popular-vote-plan/|title=New Mexico Legislature Adjourns Without Passing National Popular Vote Plan|publisher=ballot-access.org}}</ref>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
|rowspan="4"|[[File:Flag of New York.svg|20px]] [[New York (state)|New York]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 31
| 2010
| A1580B, S2286A
| {{no|not voted on}}<ref name=NY2010>{{cite web |url=http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2286A
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527222758/http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2286A
|archivedate=May 27, 2010|publisher=New York Senate |title=S02286-2009 |year=2010 |accessdate=February 14, 2011}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=NY2010/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
|rowspan="3" style="text-align:right;"| 29
| 2011
| A00489, S4208
| {{no|not voted on}}<ref name=NY2011>{{cite web |url=http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A00489&term=2011&Summary=Y&Actions=Y |publisher=New York State Assembly |title=A00489 Summary |year=2011 |accessdate=March 14, 2011}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="NY2011sen">{{cite web |url=http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S04208&term=2011&Summary=Y&Actions=Y |publisher=New York State Assembly |title=S4208 Summary |year=2011 |accessdate=June 7, 2011}}</ref>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2013
| A4422
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="NY2013h">{{cite web |url=http://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=A04422&term=2013&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Committee%26nbspVotes=Y&Floor%26nbspVotes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y
|publisher=New York House |title=A04422 Summary |year=2013 |accessdate=June 13, 2013}}</ref>
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name="NY2013h"/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2014
| A4422, S3149
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="NY2013h"/>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=NY2013s>{{cite web |url=http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S03149&term=2013&Summary=Y&Actions=Y
|publisher=New York Senate |title=S03149 Summary |year=2014 |accessdate=March 26, 2014}}</ref>
| {{yes|signed}}<ref name=NYJoin/>
| {{yes|law}}
|-
|[[File:Flag of North Carolina.svg|20px]] [[North Carolina]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 15
| 2007–08
| H1645, S954
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=h1645 |publisher=North Carolina General Assembly
| title=House Bill 1645 |year=2008 |accessdate=July 22, 2008}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=NC07Sen/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| [[File:Flag of North Dakota.svg|20px]] [[North Dakota]]
| align="right" | 3
| 2007
| HB 1336
| {{no|failed}}<ref name="ND">{{cite web |url=http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/bill-actions/ba1336.html |publisher=North Dakota State Government |title=Measure Actions |year=2007 |accessdate=July 14, 2008}}</ref>
| —
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
|[[File:Flag of Oklahoma.svg|20px]] [[Oklahoma]]
| style="text-align:right;"| 7
| 2014
| SB906
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name=OK2014s>{{cite web |url=http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB906&Session=1400
|publisher=Oklahoma Senate| title=SB906 Status in Oklahoma Senate |year=2014 |accessdate=March 17, 2014}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=OK2014s/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| rowspan="3" |[[File:Flag of Oregon.svg|20px]] [[Oregon]]
| rowspan="3" style="text-align:right;"| 7
|2009
|HB 2588
|{{yes|passed}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2009R1/Measures/Overview/HB2588|title=Oregon Legislative Information System|website=olis.leg.state.or.us|access-date=2016-07-04}}</ref>
|{{no|died in committee}}
|—
|{{no|failed}}
|-
| 2013
| HB 3077, SB 624
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=OR13h>{{cite web |url=https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB3077#CurrentStatus|title=HB 3077 |publisher=Oregon State Legislature |accessdate=April 10, 2013 |year=2013}}</ref>
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name=OR13s>{{cite web |url=https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/SB624#CurrentStatus|title=SB 624 |publisher=Oregon State Legislature |accessdate=April 10, 2013 |year=2013}}</ref>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2015
| HB 3475
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=OR15>{{cite web|url=https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3475|publisher=Oregon State Legislature|title=House Bill 3475 |year=2015 |accessdate=May 20, 2015}}</ref>
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name=OR15 />
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
|rowspan=4|[[File:Flag of Rhode Island.svg|20px]] [[Rhode Island]]
|rowspan=4 style="text-align:right;"| 4
| 2008
| H 7707, S 2112
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=RI>{{cite web |url=http://status.rilin.state.ri.us/ |publisher=Rhode Island Legislature |title=Legislative Status Report (see 7707, 2112) |year=2008
|accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=RI/>
| {{no|vetoed}}<ref name=RI/>
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2009
| HB 5569, SB 161
| {{no|failed}}<ref name=RI09>{{cite web |url=http://status.rilin.state.ri.us/ |title=Legislative status report |publisher=Rhode Island Legislature |year=2009 |accessdate=May 25, 2009}}</ref><!--search for bill no. 161--><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/06/19/rhode-island-house-defeats-national-popular-vote-bill/|title=Rhode Island House Defeats National Popular Vote Bill|publisher=ballot-access.org}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=RI09/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2011
| HB 5659, SB 164
| {{no|not voted on}}<ref name=RI11>{{cite web |url=http://status.rilin.state.ri.us/ |title=Legislative status report (look for 5659, 164 in 2011) |publisher=Rhode Island Legislature |year=2011 |accessdate=January 23, 2012}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=RI11/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2013
| H 5575, S 346
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=RI13>{{cite web |url=http://status.rilin.state.ri.us/ |publisher=Rhode Island Legislature |title=Legislative Status Report (search for bills 5575, 346) |year=2008
|accessdate=June 13, 2013}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=RI13/>
| {{yes|signed}}<ref name=RIyes/>
| {{yes|law}}<ref name=RIyes/>
|-
|rowspan=3|[[File:Flag of Vermont.svg|20px]] [[Vermont]]
|rowspan=3 style="text-align:right;"| 3
| 2007–08
| H 373, S 270
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="Vermont">{{cite web |url=http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm
|title=The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.270)
|accessdate=June 5, 2008}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="Vermont"/>
| {{no|vetoed<ref name="Vermont"/>}}
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2009–10
| S 34
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref name="Vermont09">{{cite web |url=http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm
|title=The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System (S.34)
|accessdate=April 30, 2009}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="Vermont09"/>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2011–12
| S 31<ref name="Vermont11">{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/bills/VT-S31-Bill-2011-Miller-Jan-2011.pdf
|publisher=Vermont Legislature |title=Text of S31 |year=2011 |accessdate=February 28, 2011}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="Vermont11status">{{cite web |url=http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=S%2E0031&Session=2012
|publisher=Vermont Legislature |title=S31 |year=2011 |accessdate=February 28, 2011}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="Vermont11status"/>
| {{yes|signed}}<ref name="Vermont_signed">{{cite web  | title = Vermont Is Eighth State to Enact National Popular Vote Bill  | publisher = BusinessWire  | date = April 22, 2011  | url = http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110422005311/en/Vermont-Eighth-State-Enact-National-Popular-Vote  | accessdate =April 22, 2011}}</ref>
| {{yes|law}}
|-
|rowspan=2|[[File:Flag of Washington.svg|20px]] [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]]
|rowspan=2 style="text-align:right;"| 11
| 2007–08
| HB 1750, SB 5628
| {{no|died in committee}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1750&year=2007 |publisher=Washington State Legislature |title=HB1750, 2007–08 |year=2008 |accessdate=July 14, 2008}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name="Washington">{{cite web |url=http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5628&year=2007
|publisher=Washington Legislature |title=SB5628 |year=2008 |accessdate=July 13, 2008}}</ref>
| —
| {{no|failed}}
|-
| 2009–10
| HB 1598, SB 5599
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=WA2009>{{cite web |url=http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5599&year=2009 |publisher=Washington State Legislature |title=SB5599, 2009 |year=2009 |accessdate=January 23, 2009}}</ref>
| {{yes|passed}}<ref name=WA2009/>
| {{yes|signed}}
| {{yes|law}}
|-
|}

==See also==
* [[National Popular Vote Inc.]]
* [[Electoral College (United States)]]
* [[FairVote]]
* [[Every Vote Counts Amendment]]
* [[Electoral reform in the United States]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
* [http://liebertonline.com/toc/elj/7/3 Election Law Journal Symposium on National Popular Vote]
* [http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ National Popular Vote]
* [http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote] – text of the interstate compact
* [http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote] – read or download book for free
* [http://www.fairvote.org/national-popular-vote FairVote]
* [http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1695007 Common Cause]
* [http://ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20944 Electoral College legislation at the National Conference of State Legislatures]

{{Good article}}

[[Category:United States interstate compacts]]
[[Category:Electoral reform in the United States]]