Proposed Changes to the Electoral College
Since the 2000 presidential election, every state has introduced bills to change the process for selecting electors. Between 2001 and 2006, most Electoral College reform bills proposed switching to the district system, though none passed. More recently, attention has largely shifted to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would allow states to bypass the Electoral College without amending the U.S. Constitution. When a state joins the compact, it promises to give all its electoral votes to the party that wins the national popular vote, rather than the party that wins the state popular vote. For more information, please visit NCSL’s National Popular Vote webpage.
Abolishing the Electoral College and instead electing the president by direct popular vote appeals to some. To do so would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has not been amended since 1992. There are two ways to do that:
- Congress could propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. The amendment then must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. All existing amendments to the Constitution were made in this manner.
- The legislatures of two-thirds of the states could petition Congress to convene a constitutional convention at which any part of the Constitution could be amended and any proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. This method has never been invoked.
Faithless Electors
No federal law or constitutional provision requires electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years some electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. Generally, though, electors are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders who are unlikely to vote for anyone other than their party’s candidate.
In 2016, there were seven faithless electors, the most since 1972—three Democratic electors from Washington state cast their votes for Republican Colin Powell, instead of Democrat Hillary Clinton; one Democratic elector from Washington state cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation; one Democratic elector from Hawaii cast his vote for Bernie Sanders, instead of Clinton; one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for John Kasich, instead of Donald Trump; and one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for Ron Paul, a libertarian. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican Party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket. There were no faithless electors in the 2020 election.
Some states have laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote or may disqualify an elector who violates the pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “faithless elector” laws are constitutional in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca. The table below lists the states with laws that bind the votes of presidential electors.
Most of the laws require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further. Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, and the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates the pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth-degree felony. In Michigan, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned and a replacement is appointed.
States With Laws Against Faithless Electors
State
|
Statute
|
Alabama
|
Ala. Code §17-14-31
|
Alaska
|
Alaska Stat. §15.30.090
|
Arizona
|
Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16-212
|
California
|
Cal. Elec. Code § 6914
|
Colorado
|
Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-4-304
|
Connecticut
|
Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-175
|
Delaware
|
Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, §4303(b)
|
D.C.
|
D.C. Code § 1-1001.10
|
Florida
|
Fla. Stat. §103.021
|
Hawaii
|
Haw. Rev. Stat. §14-28
|
Illinois
|
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 10, § 5/21-4
|
Indiana
|
Ind. Code §3-10-4-1.7
|
Iowa
|
Iowa Code § 54.5
|
Maine
|
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 21-A § 805
|
Maryland
|
Md. Election Law Code Ann. §8-505
|
Massachusetts
|
Mass Gen. Laws ch. 53, §8
|
Michigan
|
Mich. Comp. Laws §168.47
|
Minnesota
|
Minn. Stat. §208.46
|
Mississippi
|
Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-785
|
Montana
|
Mont. Code Ann. §13-25-304
|
Nebraska
|
Neb. Rev. Stat. §32-714
|
Nevada
|
Nev. Rev. Stat. §298.075
|
New Mexico
|
N.M. Stat. Ann. §1-15-9
|
New York
|
N.Y. Election Law § 12-106
|
North Carolina
|
N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-212
|
North Dakota
|
N.D. Cent. Code St 16.1-14.1-03
|
Oklahoma
|
Okla. Stat. tit.26 §10-102
|
Ohio
|
Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.40
|
Oregon
|
Or. Rev. Stat. §248.355
|
South Carolina
|
S.C. Code Ann. §7-19-80
|
Tennessee
|
Tenn. Code Ann. §2-15-201 et seq.
|
Texas
|
Tex. Election Code Ann. § 192.102
|
Vermont
|
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17 § 2732
|
Virginia
|
Va. Code § 24.2-240
|
Washington
|
Wash. Rev. Code §29A.56.090
|
Wisconsin
|
Wis. Stat. §7.75
|
Wyoming
|
Wyo. Stat. Ann. §22-19-108
|