Progressives have long dreamed of scrapping the Electoral College and replacing it with the national popular vote, a goal that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz helped to make a reality in his state.

Since becoming Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, Mr. Walz has positioned himself as a moderate centrist. But his support for several far-left initiatives, including his plan to disable the Electoral College, foreshadows how a Harris administration could govern. 

“This is a major concern because this effort is unconstitutional and Walz will be right there making decisions about judicial appointments,” said Trent England, executive director of Save our States, a group that advocates for preserving the Electoral College. “It’s one more piece of evidence that they would appoint the most radical, anti-constitutional judges they would find.” 

---

---

Kermit Roosevelt, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania, says a conversation about the relevance of the Electoral College is long overdue. He said putting Mr. Walz on the Democratic ticket will push that debate to the forefront of America.

“I do think this is a good idea and hope we have a conversation about it,” he said. “I think people are becoming aware of the anti-democratic features in the Constitution. This is a way in which we can make our system more fair and equal.” 

In May 2023, Mr. Walz signed legislation that would award Minnesota’s 10 presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, even if that candidate lost the state. That means if former President Donald Trump or Ms. Harris loses Minnesota, but wins the popular vote, they would control the state’s electors. 

The state law won’t have any impact on this year’s presidential election.

The legislation, signed into law with little fanfare as part of an omnibus spending bill, added Minnesota to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s a coalition of 17 blue states and the District of Columbia aimed at making the Electoral College irrelevant. 

Combined, these states have 209 electoral votes accounting for 39% of the Electoral College, and 77% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact the teeth to overtake the Electoral College. 

The NPV movement has sought to add Michigan, a significant swing state with 16 electors, to its ranks. That push is pending. 

In 2020, Ms. Harris said she was “open to the discussion” about abolishing the Electoral College. The Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

There is an ongoing legal debate about whether the interstate compact is Constitutional and, therefore, requires approval from Congress. The issue has not been decided by the courts, because its power wouldn’t kick in until the compact controls 270 electoral votes. Until then, the compact is toothless and no one has the standing to sue. 

A Pew Research Center poll last year found that 65% of Americans favor changing elections so the winner of the popular vote wins the presidency. The same poll found that an overwhelming number of Democrats (82%) support the idea compared to Republicans (47%).

A presidential candidate winning the popular vote, but losing the election, has happened five times in U.S. history. 

Democrats have pushed to do away with the Electoral College since 2000, when Democratic Vice President Al Gore claimed the popular vote, but narrowly lost the election to Republican President George W. Bush. In 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Mr. Trump, a Republican who eked out a slim victory in the Electoral College. 

President Biden in 2020 resoundingly won the popular vote over Mr. Trump by more than 7 million votes nationwide, but barely squeaked by in the Electoral College thanks to a combined 115,012 votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia. 

“In the system we have now, the election could come down to 20,000 votes in Pennsylvania,” Mr. Roosevelt said. “It’s fundamentally contrary to the idea that each American is equal and everyone’s voice should have equal weight.”

Some have argued the compact violates the 14th Amendment, which prohibits any law that “shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.” 

Others say the compact doesn’t run afoul of the Constitution because states have the right to enter into agreements on their own. They argue there is nothing in the Constitution that requires compacts between states to be approved by Congress. 

“If a state wants to appoint their electors by whatever its legislature wants, it can,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. “If a state wants to appoint its electors based on the popular vote, it can.”

Opponents of the National Popular Vote Compact say it opens up the election to all kinds of shenanigans, both legal and illegal. For example, a populous state like California could lower its voting age or extend voting rights to foreign citizens living in the state.

“California could simply make some of the smallest red states disappear by dumping a bunch of teenagers into the national vote total,” said Mr. England. “That’s perfectly legal and nothing can be done about it.”

Bradley Smith, who served as commissioner, vice chairman and chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, said a national popular vote would create a greater risk of election fraud. He said both parties would scramble to find votes anywhere they can get them across the country.

“The easiest way to commit fraud is in a one-party state where the party controls everything,” he said. “There will be a tendency to do that.”

Mr. Roosevelt counters that such fears are overblown and there are already examples of political maneuvering, such as gerrymandering electoral districts in swing states, to affect an election’s outcome.

Critics also say each state has different rules when it comes to elections, which would likely spur complaints for either party that their opponents are distorting the vote. For example, some states have extended voting windows, while others have different regulations regarding the voting rights of felons or identification rules.

The only way to solve those conflicts would be to nationalize the election rules, which is the goal, Mr. England said.

“It would force the country to nationalize the elections,” he said. “That has been the progressive goal for a long time and it gives the federal government a lot more power over our elections.”