Many radical positions of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, now Kamala Harris’s running mate, are well documented, but a lesser-known measure shows his support for a dangerous scheme to manipulate future presidential elections.

Last May, Walz signed a massive spending bill with a curious provision tucked near the end: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV). This “log rolling” was necessary because even some Democrats in the Minnesota Legislature opposed to the scheme. Putting it in a “must pass” bill was the only way to force the anti-Electoral College compact through the legislature so that Walz could sign it.

Here’s how I described the compact in a recent book: 

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV, takes advantage of the flexibility granted to state legislatures in the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The original intent is to allow legislators to determine how best to represent their state in presidential elections. The Electors represent the state—not just the legislature—even though the latter has power to direct the manner of appointment. But NPV supporters argue that this power allows legislatures to ignore their own state’s voters and instead appoint Electors based on the popular vote nationwide. This is what the compact would require states to do. 

Of course, no state would do this unilaterally, so NPV has a “trigger”: it only takes effect if adopted by enough states that they control 270 electoral votes—in other words, a majority that would control the outcome of presidential elections.

Today, Minnesota is one of 17 states (all blue states) and DC that have joined the NPV compact. Together they control 209 electoral votes, which puts it more than three-fourths of the way to taking effect.

Should it reach that threshold, there are ample reasons why judges should strike NPV down. For starters, it ignores the requirement for Congress to consent to compacts, co-mingles votes from states with different election laws, and subverts the core purpose of the constitutional provisions at issue. Yet judges often sidestep election issues to avoid appearing partisan.

If NPV did take effect, it would be a disaster for everyone—except perhaps the far-Left. Consider that NPV gives states more power for having more votes, no matter what. A state that looks the other way when non-citizens vote would have more say in who becomes president. California could simply lower its voting age—it has more 16 and 17 year olds than there are registered voters in several entire states.

Even worse, NPV state officials might get choosy about accepting vote results from other states. Would the California Secretary of State really accept results from Texas if it meant giving 54 electoral votes to the Republican ticket? And what if her progressive voter base was convinced that elections in red states were somehow illegitimate?

The Electoral College is a brilliant system that works even better than the American Founders thought it would. So well, in fact, that Germany and India have their own versions of electoral colleges in the constitutions they wrote in the middle of the twentieth century. It prevents regional candidates from winning and forces political parties to build vast, diverse coalitions.

The NPV compact would undo all this. It’s revealing that politicians like Tim Walz would rather manipulate the election process than figure out how to attract more voters into their coalition. Like Walz, the NPV Compact is sometimes presented as moderate when it is, in fact, a tool of the far-Left and a threat to our constitutional order.

* * *

Trent England is founder and executive director of Save Our States and a producer of the film Safeguard: An Electoral College Story.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Continue reading this exclusive article and join the conversation, plus watch free videos on DW+

Already a member? Log in