Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Beware efforts to snatch the people's presidential vote

Opinion

People protesting with "People ovoer politics" signs

People rallied outside the Supreme Court in December 2022 protest partisan gerrymandinering and application of the independent state legislature theory.

Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Editor's note: This article was corrected to reflect the proper timeline for passage of Electoral Count Reform Act.

Merloe provides strategic advice on democracy and elections to U.S. and international organizations. He is a former director of election integrity programs at the nonpartisan National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

When Americans vote for a presidential candidate, they are actually voting for a slate of people to represent their state in the Electoral College. What few Americans realize is that their state legislature could legally exercise the power to select the electors without holding a popular vote – or it could even ignore the people’s choice. Those are dangerous possibilities in this time of toxic polarization and empowered election deniers.


The Constitution’s electors clause (within Article II, Section 1) states: “Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct a [specific] Number of Electors.” The clause does not specify that citizens have the right to choose the electors by a vote. In the earliest presidential elections, legislatures picked the electors without holding a popular vote. By 1864, every state required the people's vote for electors, though that could change. The Supreme Court reminded us in its 1990 Bush v. Gore decision that there is no federal right for citizens to vote for president unless the state legislature grants it, and that power may be taken back.

Beware of new state laws concerning presidential electors

It is difficult to envision a state legislature eliminating presidential voting. The uproar from citizens would be formidable to say the least. Nonetheless, we should be wary of possible state laws providing that, where there is an election crisis – real or manufactured – the legislature would determine the electors or electors would be required to vote for the legislature’s choice of candidates.

Those who promote the independent state legislature theory would have us believe that legislatures may snatch back the power to pick electors at any time. Fortunately, there may well be legal constraints preventing such egregious actions.

In late 2022, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act, which among other things provides that the governor or other designated official shall issue a certificate under laws of the state “enacted prior to election day” designating who are to be the state’s electors. That should prevent legislatures from acting arbitrarily to designate electors despite the outcome of the popular vote. Ardent ISL proponents argue against the requirement, saying that the electors clause does not empower Congress to limit legislatures. However, existing Supreme Court decisions should be interpreted as curtailing at least the most egregious arbitrary actions.

The Supreme Court, in its 2023 Moore v. Harper decision, rejected the ISL theory concerning the Constitution’s elections clause (Article I, Section 4) by confirming that state legislatures have the power to prescribe the time, place and manner of holding federal elections subject to Congress providing otherwise, and they are constrained by their state constitutions, including state judicial review. In Moore, the court noted an earlier decision concerning the electors clause ( McPherson v, Blacker). It cited Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s opinion for the court in that case, which addressed the state legislature’s power to designate electors: “[t]he legislative power is the supreme authority except as limited by the constitution of the State.”

Enshrine the popular vote in state constitutions

That reference gives clear guidance: Ensure that the popular vote for the state’s electors is enshrined in the state’s constitution. If it is not there already, passing a constitutional amendment to that effect is in order. Plus, any law and any new bill affecting the designation of a state’s electors or their voting discretion should be carefully scrutinized to protect the popular vote. These steps should be added to efforts to pass and protect state voting rights laws.

There is a substantial risk of setting aside the people's vote in any state where the certification of the presidential election is not finalized by Dec. 10, as required by ECRA’s provisions. Though there is no penalty for failure to meet that date, the gray area between it and Jan. 6, when Congress settles the outcome of the presidential election, is a twilight zone for possibly nightmarish developments.

Besides clear election administration deadlines and expedited judicial processes to resolve electoral challenges, states must be able to timely and effectively require election boards to complete results certification at county and state levels by Dec. 10, or the twilight zone begins.

In 2020, partisan election officials initially refused to certify Detroit’s results, holding up Michigan’s presidential election. In 2022, four states (Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania) saw county officials refuse to certify results, though most of them relented. Those instances illustrate the risk, as the Dec. 10 deadline approaches, of an electoral crisis and the possibility of one or more state legislatures designating electors despite the voters’ choice. Such events would also feed the disinformation mill and subvert faith in elections.

An additional risk was highlighted in a recent New York Times op-ed by constitutional scholars Lawrence Lessig and Matthew Seligman. They warn that a state legislature could pass a law giving it the power to bind the state’s certified electors to vote as the legislature instructs them – irrespective of the popular vote. That possibility is based on the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Chiafalo v Washington, where the court held that state law may enforce an elector’s pledge to vote for the candidate of the party that put them on its slate of electors. The authors interpret this as creating the possibility that a legislature could completely eliminate the elector’s voting discretion, or provide a default for honoring the popular vote unless the legislature orders otherwise, perhaps where there are unresolved charges of fraud.

The age-old practice of ballot-box snatching (stealing or destroying ballots from opponents' strongholds) is well known, but the people’s vote can be snatched in other ways. Vigilance is required to safeguard the vote. Its essential role in determining the members of the Electoral College requires strong protection.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less