Democratic Statehouse Gains Push Popular Vote Compact Toward 270, Reviving a Constitutional Fight

Two years before Americans choose President Trump's successor, a long-shot plan to change how that choice is made has moved from the margins of state politics toward the center. Democratic gains in statehouses in the Nov. 3 midterms have brought the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact within striking distance of the 270 electoral votes it needs to take effect, Fox News reported ^[1]. If it gets there, the Electoral College would still exist on paper, but the national vote tally would decide who becomes president ^[1].

How the Compact Works

Each member state promises to give all of its electors to whichever presidential candidate wins the most votes nationwide, even if that state's own voters preferred someone else ^[2]. The agreement stays dormant until the member states together control at least 270 electoral votes, a majority of the Electoral College ^[2]. Today, every state except Maine and Nebraska awards all of its electors to the statewide winner ^[1].

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have signed on, holding 222 electoral votes between them, which leaves the compact 48 short ^[1]. Virginia joined in April, when Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed legislation adding its 13 electoral votes ^[2]. To govern the 2028 election, the compact must cross 270 before July 20 of that year ^[1].

The push gained momentum after the 2000 and 2016 elections, when the winners lost the national popular vote, according to a New York Times report republished by The Philadelphia Inquirer ^[3].

Where the Next 48 Votes Could Come From

Democrats now control the governor's office and both legislative chambers in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada, according to Fox News ^[1]. Those four states carry 50 electoral votes combined, enough to lift the compact to 272 and activate it ^[1]. Arizona, which the Washington Examiner reported now has an incoming Democratic trifecta, offers 11 more ^[2]; adding it would push the total to 283 ^[1].

National Popular Vote says it has identified legislative sponsors in all five states and expects bills to be pre-filed or introduced early in the 2027 sessions, Fox News reported ^[1]. Michigan state Rep. Carrie Rheingans introduced compact legislation in July, and Wisconsin Democrats filed their own version in March ^[2]. Wisconsin state Sen. Kelda Roys told the Times the measure would be an early priority when lawmakers return ^[3].

Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller, a longtime skeptic of the compact's legal footing, sees a real opening. "It's a very real possibility that enough states join this compact," he told the Times ^[3].

Not every Democrat sounds eager. Wisconsin Assembly Democrat Clinton Anderson plans to reintroduce a compact bill but told the Times it was not what he heard from voters while knocking on doors ^[3]. And Nevada's Democratic governor vetoed a bill to join in 2019, warning that it could weaken the influence of smaller states ^[3].

Related Peltola Stretches Alaska Senate Lead to 4,250 Votes as Ranked-Choice Tabulation Nears

The Constitutional Questions

Supporters rest their case on Article II, Section 1, which lets each state legislature decide how its electors are appointed. Patrick Rosenstiel, a senior consultant to National Popular Vote, argued that the clause plainly reserves to the states the sole power to award electors, leaving congressional consent as the only serious legal question ^[1]. A 2025 New York University law journal analysis similarly argued that the compact uses powers states already hold without undermining federal supremacy ^[2].

Critics point to the Compact Clause, which requires the consent of Congress for certain agreements among states ^[4]. In Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), the Supreme Court read that requirement to cover pacts that tend to build up the political influence of the states that join, as opposed to routine arrangements that do not concern the United States, Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Thomas Jipping explained ^[4]. Muller argued as early as 2007 that the popular vote compact does exactly that, and that its collective trigger and limits on withdrawal mark it as the kind of pact that needs Congress's approval ^[2].

Jipping's conclusion is blunt: the compact is political by nature, it lacks congressional consent and it is therefore unconstitutional; even with consent, he argues, it is bad policy, and a change of this size belongs to the Article V amendment process ^[4]. Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member now with Advancing American Freedom, put it plainly to Fox News: "They can't use a compact to, in essence, change the Electoral College." ^[1] He said states left out of the deal would have solid grounds to sue ^[1].

This year brings a twist. Von Spakovsky noted that consent requires only simple majorities in the House and Senate, predicted the incoming Democratic Congress would grant it easily, and said the Constitution does not explicitly call for a presidential signature, so a veto might not end the matter ^[1]. Muller, by contrast, has said compacts traditionally require approval from both Congress and the president ^[3]. Either way, the dispute is headed to court. Jason Snead of the conservative Honest Elections Project expects litigation in the run-up to 2028 and told the Washington Examiner that a ruling requiring consent would simply move the fight to Congress ^[2].

Why the Founders Built the Electoral College

The National Constitution Center calls the Electoral College one of the great compromises of the Constitutional Convention, adopted after delegates weighed at least four methods: election by Congress, by state governors, by state legislatures and by direct popular vote ^[5]. James Wilson, James Madison, John Dickinson, Roger Sherman and Gouverneur Morris worked out its details ^[5]. Alexander Hamilton defended the result in Federalist No. 68, writing that "if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent." ^[5]

Historian Tara Ross points out that Hamilton wanted the sense of the people to guide the choice, while guarding as far as possible against cabals, intrigue and corruption ^[6]. Ross argues the state-by-state structure still does that work: it makes elections harder to steal, blunts the reach of extremist factions and, as she writes, "prevents one part of the country from ruling the other parts." ^[6]

Weighing the Two Cases

Compact backers argue that every vote should carry equal weight in one national tally ^[1]. Pennsylvania state Sens. Maria Collett and Katie Muth argued that the health of American democracy should not hinge on wearing out a few swing states while the rest of the country is overlooked ^[2]. Rosenstiel, a Minnesota Republican, contends neither party holds a permanent edge under either system and urges conservatives to compete beyond the familiar battlegrounds ^[2]. He told Fox News that 63% of Americans want a national popular vote ^[1].

The conservative reply begins with the Constitution's design: Americans elect the president of a union of states, and the Electoral College rewards candidates who build broad coalitions across regions rather than running up margins in a handful of crowded population centers. The compact would also produce a strange result, obliging a state's electors to vote against the candidate its own citizens chose ^[2]. Once the trigger is reached, Jipping warns, the remaining states "become spectators rather than participants." ^[4]

The practical risks are real, too. Snead noted that 50 states run elections under 50 different sets of rules, which could invite equal protection challenges in a close national count ^[2]. "It's going to be chaos. It's going to be confusion," he said ^[2]. Today a disputed count stays inside one state; under the compact, a razor-thin national margin could put every state's ballots in play.

For conservatives, the deeper principle is humility about power. A system that spreads decisions among the states guards against the temptations that come with concentrating them in one national majority. If Americans truly want a different method, the Constitution provides an honest route, a formal amendment, rather than a workaround among like-minded states ^[4].

What Comes Next

The action now moves to state capitols. National Popular Vote expects bills early in the 2027 legislative sessions in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ^[1], and lawmakers in key states told the Times they had already begun discussing legislation ^[3]. If enough of those states act, opponents expect a court fight over the Compact Clause, and a Democratic Congress may be asked to give its blessing ^[1][2].

Ross argues that much of the problem is that schools no longer teach why the system was created ^[6]. Before those 2027 votes are cast, defenders of the framers' design have a clear job: make that case, plainly and persuasively, in every statehouse where the question is on the table.