League of Women Voters of North Carolina

The LWVUS initiated a study of the National Popular Vote in 2008 and in 2009 began the concurrence process with Leagues throughout the country. Because some of the concurrence questions presented false choices, and because members were not given the option of voting for both pursuing the National Popular Vote Compact and a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, consensus could not be reached. Rather than end the issue there, the National Board recommended that support for concurrence be sought at Convention. That's what happened in Atlanta, Georgia June 11-15, 2010.

Spearheaded by the Arizona League, a caucus was held on Saturday night at the LWVUS 2010 Convention with a panel whose members discussed the reasons why the NPV Compact should be pursued. The bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be the winner of the election. Section 10 of Article 1 of the Constitution authorizes two or more states to enter into a compact or agreement with the consent of Congress. The agreement will become effective when state legislatures with 270 electoral votes enact it into law, at which time each member jurisdiction will award all of its future electoral votes to the candidate who received the largest number of popular votes throughout the nation. This would avoid the need for a constitutional amendment to change the Electoral College system of selecting the president and vice-president to direct popular election, the most democratic selection system

Where the Electoral College allows states to select the president, one person-one vote will prevail under the National Popular Vote Compact. States that have not become part of the compact will have their votes counted in the final popular vote count because every state's popular vote is included in the nationwide total once the 270 electoral total is reached.

Public opinion polls show that 70% of the nation's voters support direct popular election of the president and vice-president. Over 600 bills supporting a constitutional amendment have been introduced over the years with no success, leading to the conclusion that the National Popular Vote stands a better chance of passage when enough states have passed the compact so that the total of 270 electoral votes is reached.

The National Popular Vote Compact legislation has been introduced in all 50 states, and is law in 5 states. It has passed 30 legislative chambers in 20 states (North Carolina Senate being one in 2007), and would replace the current state-by-state system of awarding electoral votes with a system guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states and District of Columbia, thus reinforcing one person-one vote.

Barbara Coulson

The League is supporting a number of issues during the 2009 legislative session.

Now that HB-120, the local public financing authorization bill, has been approved by the state House and is alive for the rest of the session, our attention has turned to passage of the Council of State bill, SB-966, Expand Voter-Owned Elections. It needs to be approved by at least one chamber before the May 14th crossover deadline.

After the long battle for HB-120 in the House, we've decided to try our luck with the Senate. And so far, so good. SB-966 has been scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary 1 committee Tuesday, May 12th. The meeting will be from 9am to 11am in 1024 LB.

The League supported a number of campaign reform measures during the 2007 legislative session:

a Council of State public funding pilot, H-1517, which passed at the 11th hour,
a pilot for funding legislative races did not make it out of either chamber (This legislation will not be taken up in the 2008 short session, which convenes May 13.),
‘Same-day registration’, H-19, which allows residents to register and vote at the same time at early voting sites in their county,
H-483, allowing for a pilot for public funding of municipal elections in Chapel Hill,
legislation, H-1024, that allowed for ‘Instant runoff’ voting in Cary and Hendersonville during the 2007 elections, and
a bill to strengthen the judicial fund, to allow matching funds to compensate for money spent by issue groups targeting for judicial candidates who opted for public campaign funds. Although a number of judges were targeted in 2006, most judges are opting to use the fund again in 2008. A provision to match similar 527 spending is already in the Council of State pilot bill.

For a bit more information on these bills, see Synopsis of 2007 legislative achievement. For the nitty gritty, see below.

What’s happening now? Working closely with a coalition of groups interested in campaign reform, we continue to advance legislation that provides for freer elections. North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections has produced a 2006 and 2007 Legislative Scorecard showing how legislators across the state voted on campaign reform bills. Know how your legislator voted. If you would like to get involved in working for election reform in NC, please contact Louise Romanow at LWVNCCampaignReform@earthlink.net.
Updated May 10, 2009.

2007 House legislative public financing pilot bill (did not pass)

In accordance with the League of Women Voters' position of promoting political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government, the LWVNC supports instant runoff voting (IRV) for all statewide and local elections.

LWVNC Position on Redistricting

National Popular Vote

Campaign Reform

Public Financing of Judicial Races

Public Funding of Legislative Races

Public Funding of Executive Races (Council of State)

Local Funding

Same Day Registration

Redistricting

Other Election Reform

League Partners