NewsMax.com Wires
Monday, Oct. 4, 2004

Story Continues Below

  The change would take effect with this election, all but assuring an immediate court challenge.

For example, Democrat John Kerry could win four Electoral College votes even though he trails President Bush in Colorado opinion polls. If the proposal had been in place four years ago, Democrat Al Gore would have earned enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

If either candidate ends up just four or five electoral votes shy of victory this time, the election could hang on two questions from Colorado: Will the initiative pass and will it withstand a constitutional challenge almost certain to race to the nine Supreme Court justices in Washington.

"Colorado could be the Florida of 2004," said Ted Halaby, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party and an opponent of the ballot measure.

Proponents say the change, if adopted nationally, would prevent puzzling outcomes like the one of four years ago when Gore won more votes overall but lacked the Electoral College votes to claim the presidency.

"It's simple: We want every vote to be counted," said Julie Brown, director of the lobbying effort to pass the ballot initiative.

Colorado's proposal is unlikely to be adopted in every state, at least in the short run. If upheld in court, however, similar ballot initiatives could be an attractive strategy for Democrats in particular states that tend to vote Republican, and for Republicans in states that tend to go Democrat.

For example, Republicans could claim a share of California's enormous pot of 55 electoral votes that would otherwise go entirely to the Democrat presidential candidate, and Democrats could snatch some of the 34 electoral votes that Texas would otherwise award to the Republican candidate.

Brown said she had heard from partisans in both those states who are watching the Colorado vote.

The effort to pass the Colorado ballot question is officially nonpartisan, although a Democrat state legislator first proposed scrapping Colorado's winner-take-all Electoral College rules out of frustration over the 2000 election. The effort has received funding from people with Democrat ties.

Polls last month indicated enough support to pass the measure, but opponents note that they have only recently organized a "vote no" campaign.

Opponents, including Colorado's Republican governor, say the effort would serve Democrats' short-term national political aims while costing Colorado political clout.

If the initiative passes, Colorado would become the third state to reject the winner-take-all approach, but its system would be unique. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, award electoral votes according to which candidate wins in each congressional district. Even with that system, all the electoral votes from those states have always gone to a single candidate.

Constitution: U.S. Is a Republic, Not a Democracy

The Constitution sets up the Electoral College as a buffer between the popular vote and the White House, and gives states room to choose how they will select electors. That power, however, is given to state legislatures. There is no mention of whether voters could make the decision directly, as they would in Colorado by voting yes on the ballot question.

A Supreme Court challenge would probably focus on whether the voters were an extension of the Legislature in this instance, a question that could, like the Bush vs. Gore case in 2000, require the justices to decide matters of law and politics at once.

"Both sides see that it's a serious and difficult question that doesn't have an obvious answer, which is what makes the prospect of litigating it while the votes for the presidency are being counted so shocking," said Washington lawyer Thomas Goldstein, a Supreme Court specialist.

Lawyers could also challenge the timing of the Colorado measure, arguing that it is unfair to ask voters to decide the question while also picking a candidate whose fortunes could hinge on the answer.

Lawyers for the Bush and Kerry campaigns are lying low for now, unsure whether the ballot initiative will help or hurt. Lawyers on both sides must prepare to play either offense or defense in any court fight, said Loyola Law School professor Rick Hasen.

"From the point of view of the parties you might want to wait to see if it's to your advantage," he said.

© 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Editor's note: