April 25, 2019
NPV—The National Popular Vote Initiative: Proposing Direct
Election of the President Through an Interstate Compact
Origins
R43824, Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues
The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative is a
for Congress). Dissatisfaction with the 2000 election
nongovernmental advocacy campaign that promotes direct
prompted exploration by public interest groups and
popular election of the President and Vice President
nongovernmental organizations into potential alternative
through an agreement among states, the National Popular
procedures that could establish effective direct popular
Vote Interstate Compact (for additional information, see
election without having to meet the rigorous constitutional
CRS Report R43823, The National Popular Vote (NPV)
requirements for an amendment. These efforts ultimately
Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate
led to the NPV, which its supporters introduced in 2006.
Compact).
How the NPV Would Work
NPV’s origins can be traced to the 2000 presidential
The NPV Initiative proposes an interstate compact, an
election. In that contest, Republican nominee George W.
agreement among the states that would effectively achieve
Bush won the presidency with a majority of 271 electoral
direct popular election of the President and Vice President
votes to his Democratic opponent Al Gore Jr.’s 266, but
without a constitutional amendment. Each state that joins
Gore received 537,209 more popular votes nationwide than
the NPV agrees to appoint electors pledged to the
his opponent. This outcome, sometimes referred to as an
candidates who won the nationwide popular vote. Election
electoral college “misfire,” particularly by opponents of the
authorities in the member states would count and certify the
system, occurred because (1) the Constitution requires a
vote, which would be aggregated and certified as “the
majority of electoral votes, not popular votes, to win; and
nationwide popular vote.” Member state legislatures would
(2) most states award electoral votes on a “winner-take-all”
then appoint the slate of electors pledged to the nationwide
basis—the popular vote winner takes all the state’s electoral
popular vote winner. They would do this regardless of who
votes, while none are allocated to the runner-up. It is
won the popular vote in their state. The compact would
therefore possible to win the presidency by winning in
come into effect only if its success were assured—that is,
states that control an electoral vote majority, while the
only after states controlling a majority of electoral votes
opposing candidate wins more popular votes nationwide,
(270 or more) had joined the compact. States could
but fewer votes in the electoral college.
withdraw from the compact, but if they did so within six
months of a presidential election, the withdrawal would not
While the potential for a candidate to be elected with a
take effect until after that election.
majority of electoral votes but fewer popular votes than his
or her opponent is an inherent characteristic of the electoral
The NPV Initiative relies on the Constitution’s grant of
college system as it exists today, the 2000 presidential
broad authority over presidential electors to the states.
election result was the first such occurrence since 1888.
Article II, Section 1, authorizes them to appoint presidential
Combined with a contentious legal struggle over results in
electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
the electorally decisive state of Florida, the process revived
direct.... ” Although presidential electors in every state have
criticism of, and concerns about, the existing procedures.
been chosen by popular vote since 1864, this practice is not
Critics argued the electoral college system was
expressly required by Article II. As a result, NPV advocates
fundamentally undemocratic because it could elect a
maintain that changing the mode of election from the voters
President who won fewer popular votes than his or her
to the state legislatures, based on the national popular vote,
opponent (for additional information, see CRS Report
complies with the Constitution.
RL32611, The Electoral College: How It Works in
Contemporary Presidential Elections). It should, they
National Popular Vote Inc., a California-based nonprofit
asserted, be replaced by direct popular election, which they
corporation established in 2006, publicizes the NPV and
claim guarantees the candidate who wins the most popular
promotes and manages a nationwide campaign to gain state
votes also wins the presidency. Defenders countered with
participation.
arguments based on tradition, federalism, and the
moderating influence of the electoral college system. In the
Debate Over the NPV
late 20th century, Congress considered constitutional
In addition to guaranteeing that the candidates winning the
amendments to establish direct election or reform the
most popular votes would always win the presidency,
electoral college, but none of the proposals met the first
proponents claim that under NPV, candidates would
constitutional requirement for an amendment, approval by a
campaign more widely, instead of focusing resources and
two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, which must
candidate time on “battleground” states, and would direct
precede submission of an amendment to the states for
greater attention to issues relevant to other parts of the
ratification (for additional information, see CRS Report
country. Opponents assert that NPV would diminish the
https://crsreports.congress.gov
NPV—The National Popular Vote Initiative: Proposing Direct Election of the President Through an Interstate Compact
role of states and eliminate the combined federal and
Delaware (3), 2019; and
national aspect of presidential elections, that it would
circumvent the founders’ intentions in establishing the
New Mexico (5), 2019.
amendment process, and that it might lead to more, rather
In 2019 Colorado, Delaware, and New Mexico have joined
than fewer, disputed elections.
the NPV Compact by the time of this writing. On March 15,
2019, Colorado Governor Jared Polis approved the
NPV has also been subject to scrutiny on legal grounds (for
legislature’s action by which the state joined the NPV
additional information, see CRS Report R43823, The
compact; with Governor John Carney’s March 28 signature,
National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of
Delaware joined NPV; and New Mexico Governor
the President by Interstate Compact, specifically pp. 17-
Michelle Lujan Grisham signed legislation joining the
26). Some observers maintain that in order for the NPV to
compact on April 3. Accession by these three states, in
take legal effect, it must be approved by Congress, in
company with Connecticut’s 2018 approval, marks the most
accordance with Article I, Section 10, clause 3, of the
sizable advance for the compact in several years.
Constitution. Others question whether the NPV might
unconstitutionally infringe on the role of the electoral
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures
college or conflict with the Voting Rights Act by diluting
State Elections Database, the NPV Compact has been
the voting strength of state minority populations.
introduced during the 2019 session in at least one chamber
of the legislatures of 14 additional states that are jointly
Progress and Prospects
allocated 150 electoral votes. These include Arizona (11),
Since its 2006 debut, the NPV Initiative has been
Florida (29), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas
introduced at various times in all 50 state legislatures and
(6), Maine (4), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), New
the Council of the District of Columbia. Since 2007, 14
Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Oregon (7),
states and the District of Columbia have joined the NPV
and South Carolina (9). Among these, as of late April, the
Compact. They are listed (1) by the year of adoption and
Assembly of the Nevada legislature and the Oregon Senate
the order in which they adopted for years in which multiple
had approved NPV. Most of these legislatures, however,
states joined; and (2) by the current number of electoral
will adjourn their 2019 sessions sometime between late
votes per state. Together, they account for a total of 189
April and June, so if any further action were to be taken on
electoral votes, 70% of an electoral college majority, but 81
NPV membership in 2019 in these states, it would most
fewer than the 270 or more required by the compact before
likely take place during this period.
the NPV could be implemented.
The decision of three states to join the NPV Compact in
Maryland (10), 2007;
2019 marks the most activity in a single year since 2008. It
remains to be seen whether their actions generate additional
Hawaii (4), 2008;
support or momentum in the states whose legislatures
Illinois (20), 2008;
remain in session at this time. If so, this could lead to
further progress toward the goal of states allocated 270
New Jersey (14), 2008;
electoral votes. If no trend emerges, the initiative’s future
Washington (12), 2009;
prospects would arguably remain uncertain, barring
unforeseen circumstances. In conclusion, however, it
Massachusetts (11), 2010;
should be noted that if the NPV were to reach its goal, its
District of Columbia (3), 2010;
implementation would not be certain, as it would then
likely be challenged on constitutional grounds, as noted
Vermont (3), 2011;
previously in this In Focus product.
California (55), 2011;
Rhode Island (4), 2013;
Thomas H. Neale, Specialist in American National
Government
New York (29), 2014;
IF11191
Connecticut (7), 2018;
Colorado (9), 2019;
https://crsreports.congress.gov
NPV—The National Popular Vote Initiative: Proposing Direct Election of the President Through an Interstate Compact
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11191 · VERSION 1 · NEW