Policies > Enfranchise Voters Through Electoral College Reform

Enfranchise Voters Through Electoral College Reform

Author: Luke Sassa | Project 2029 Planning Chief

There is a simple way to ensure that every single vote across America holds the same influence on the electoral process—enacting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).  The NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia have already joined the NPIVC, representing 209 of the required 270 electoral votes needed to guarantee the popular vote winner becomes president. 

Table of Contents

Why the Electoral College Harms Most Voters — and What We Can Do About It

Every Vote Doesn’t Count Equally

  • A voter in Wyoming has 3.6 times more influence in presidential elections than a voter in California. 4 5

  • Presidential candidates focus only on a handful of swing states. If you live in a safe red or blue state, your vote is ignored.

  • Land, not people, decides elections — because the system was designed in part to protect the power of landowning elites.

 It Violates Basic Fairness

  • The Electoral College’s winner-take-all system lets a candidate lose the popular vote but still win the presidency.

  • The Electoral College violates the principle of “one person, one vote” — a right the Supreme Court has previously upheld.

  • The 14th Amendment promises equal rights for all citizens, but the Electoral College makes some votes count more than others just because of where you live.

  • The Supreme Court decided in Reynolds v. Sims that a voter’s power shouldn't depend on geography, but it still does in presidential elections. 2

  • Even small states lose — if they’re not swing states, they’re forgotten too.

The Bottom Line: It’s Undemocratic

  • The presidency is supposed to represent all Americans, but under the current Electoral College system, that’s impossible.

  • Your vote should matter equally, no matter where you live.

  • We need a system where every vote counts the same, and the presidential candidate with the most votes wins — plain and simple.

The Solution: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

  • The NPVIC is a deal among states to award their electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide.

  • 17 states plus DC have already joined the compact, and only a handful of additional states must join for it to take effect.

  • Existing federal agencies like the Election Assistance Commission, the Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security can each work to support the implementation of the NPVIC.

Imagine a System Where:

  • The candidate with the most votes always wins the presidency, no matter what.

  • Whether you live in California, Delaware, or Ohio, your vote counts the same.

  • No more being ignored because you live in a “safe” state — candidates will care about all Americans, not just a few in battleground states.

  • Power is returned to regular people. Donors, strategists, and candidates will be forced to care about the views of all citizens, not just those in swing states.

  • The system changes using existing laws and agencies — no need to rewrite the Constitution.

The Big Picture:

  • A fairer, modern, one-person-one-vote democracy — by 2029.

The Electoral College and the Erosion of 'One Person, One Vote'

Politicians in America derive their power from the people who exercise their constitutional right to vote. Yet when Americans elect their President, the Electoral College distorts the longstanding legal principle of 'one person, one vote.’ Instead, the current system gives disproportionate weight to voters in certain states, making presidential elections less representative of the true will of the American people.

This undemocratic, rigged system of electing Presidents, in which the votes of some Americans count more than others, deprives American citizens of equal representation. Presidential candidates often target voters in states deemed more advantageous to their election efforts while neglecting vast swaths of the electorate less critical to the electoral outcome. With some segments of the electorate grossly overrepresented percentage-wise in the final tally of electoral votes and other segments disproportionately underrepresented in this count, the political neglect of many Americans is perpetuated. 

This imbalance is not just undemocratic — it raises serious constitutional concerns. Since the Electoral College deprives American voters of equal representation in presidential elections, it violates principles of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which courts have interpreted to require equal treatment in the voting process. 1 In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the Supreme Court held that the "one person, one vote" legal principle is fundamental to the Equal Protection Clause, emphasizing that voting rights must be equally protected. 2 The principle of equal representation was central to the Reynolds v. Sims decision, which held that it is unconstitutional for a state to dilute its citizens' votes through improper districting. 

In Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court ruled that "the weight of a citizen’s vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives.” Yet the Electoral College contradicts this principle by creating a rigged system where votes in different states carry vastly different levels of influence. Additionally, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that elected officials “represent people, not trees or acres,” reinforcing the “one person, one vote” legal principle that the Electoral College violates. 3

While Reynolds v. Sims directly addressed state legislative redistricting, its core principle — ensuring roughly equal weight for each vote — must also apply to presidential elections, since the Presidency is the only office designed to represent all Americans equally across all 50 states. Our electoral system was originally conceived as a republic but was designed to favor landowning white male elites, who were initially the only citizens eligible to vote. Because this archaic system was not intended to guarantee “one person, one vote” equality, we have now reached a point in our nation’s history where a republican system that awards the Presidency to the candidate with the most votes would better ensure one-person, one-vote equity.

As currently enforced, the Electoral College results in several significant voter disparities conflicting with the 'one person, one vote' principle established in cases like Reynolds v. Sims. The unequal weight of votes across state lines is the most consequential of these disparities. For example, Wyoming holds 3 electoral votes representing a population of approximately 577,719 people, which amounts to 1 electoral vote per 192,573 residents. 4 5

Meanwhile, California’s 55 electoral votes are spread over a much larger population of approximately 39,576,757 people, which amounts to 1 electoral vote per 719,577 residents. 4 5 As a result, a Wyoming voter’s influence in presidential elections is approximately 3.6 times greater than that of a California voter.

“A Wyoming voter’s influence in presidential elections is approximately 3.6 times greater than that of a California voter.”

Electoral votes are allocated based on a state’s total population, not just its voting-age population. States with a smaller proportion of eligible voters relative to the total population (i.e., states with a younger population, more non-citizen residents, or large prison populations) receive more influence per vote than states where a larger proportion of residents are eligible voters. This further contributes to the variation of voting power for any one citizen across different states. The current Electoral College system also harms many smaller states in a different way. Supporters of the Electoral College often defend it as a safeguard for smaller states; in reality, it only benefits a select few swing states while rendering most small states politically irrelevant after the primaries. After the presidential primaries conclude, candidates largely ignore smaller states with fewer electoral votes unless they are swing states since there is not much of an electoral incentive to interact with those voters. For example, during the 2012 presidential election, candidates visited only three of the 25 smallest states after each party’s conventions, as they preferred to focus on swing states and ignored the remaining small states. 6

The Electoral College system is only truly advantageous to voters residing in swing states and states overrepresented in the delegate count, as those states have a disproportionate influence on presidential election results.

Ensuring Presidential Elections Reflect the Will of All Americans

There is only one way to ensure that every single vote from every last corner of America exerts the exact same amount of influence on the electoral process: by representing the will of the American people through the national popular vote. Doing so will ensure that each voter is represented exactly once and that no person, no matter their place of residence, net worth, or personal identity, shall have a higher or lower degree of influence when voting in presidential elections.

The failings of the undemocratic Electoral College system necessitate a transition to an equitable national popular vote, with certain legal avenues available to achieve this reform. While some advocate for a constitutional amendment to reform or abolish the Electoral College outright, such a proposal faces insurmountable political and procedural hurdles since it requires two-thirds approval in Congress and ratification by 38 states — an unlikely feat in today’s polarized political environment. 

A second, far more feasible avenue exists to implement a national popular vote. The Constitution does not prescribe a specific method for how states must allocate their electors, leaving that decision to state legislatures (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2). 7 Given this flexibility, states must instead adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote instead of the candidate who wins their state. 

For this compact to take effect, states representing at least 270 electoral votes (the majority needed to win the presidency) must join the NPVIC to ensure the majority of delegates are awarded to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. This compact is grounded in states’ constitutional right to determine how they allocate their electoral votes. A precedent exists for exercising this right, as states have changed their electoral methods before, including allocating electors by district. The NPVIC offers a legally sound and immediately actionable path to ensuring the presidency reflects the true will of the people while working within the existing constitutional framework rather than attempting to overhaul it entirely.

Currently, the NPVIC has been enacted by states totaling 209 electoral votes. However, these states have continued to honor their own state vote for the time being. The compact will trigger to honor the national popular vote once states representing at least 270 electoral votes have joined. At that point, the electoral votes of all states participating in the NPVIC would make up the majority and be pledged to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, ensuring that the electoral outcome directly aligns with the will of the American people.

The following states, plus the District of Columbia, have passed the NPVIC into law: 

  • California 8 (54 electoral votes)

  • New York 9 (28 electoral votes)

  • Illinois 10 (19 electoral votes)

  • New Jersey 11 (14 electoral votes)

  • Washington 12 (12 electoral votes)

  • Massachusetts 13 (11 electoral votes)

  • Maryland 14 (10 electoral votes)

  • Colorado 15 (10 electoral votes)

  • Minnesota 16 (10 electoral votes)

  • Oregon 17 (8 electoral votes)

  • Connecticut 18 (7 electoral votes)

  • New Mexico 19 (5 electoral votes)

  • Hawaii 20 (4 electoral votes)

  • Rhode Island 21 (4 electoral votes)

  • Maine 22 (4 electoral votes)

  • Vermont 23 (3 electoral votes)

  • Delaware 24 (3 electoral votes)

  • The District of Columbia 25 (3 electoral votes). 

In Nevada (6 electoral votes), the Senate and Assembly approved the NPVIC as a constitutional amendment in 2023. 26 Although this bill did not advance any further, its initial passage demonstrated that Nevada is a state capable of eventually adopting the NPVIC.

Beyond Nevada, states like Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), Michigan (15 electoral votes), Virginia (13 electoral votes), Arizona (11 electoral votes), and Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) all hold the potential to become viable states for NPVIC adoption in the coming years given the current political landscape. For the NPVIC to take effect, additional states totaling a minimum of 61 electoral votes must immediately join the NPVIC. This grouping of states that have yet to pass the NPVIC but have the highest potential to do so currently comprises 74 electoral votes, which would be more than enough to enact the compact.

Now is the time to fight tooth and nail to get the NPVIC across the finish line. To establish a truly representative democracy that ensures all votes in presidential elections are treated equally, thereby enforcing the Equal Protection Clause and the “one person, one vote” legal principle, the President should take decisive executive action to support states in adopting the NPVIC to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold necessary for implementation.

The President should begin by leveraging federal agencies and resources to encourage state participation in the NPVIC. This can be accomplished through executive actions directing appropriate agencies to act in ways that promote the NPVIC within the scope of their agency. These directives should remain in place until enough states representing a comfortable margin greater than 270 electoral votes have joined the NPVIC; this will allow the compact to remain in effect even if population changes slightly decrease Electoral College delegate totals in some member states.

To enhance the integrity of American democracy and the promise of equal representation in presidential elections, the NPVIC must be implemented without delay.

Supporting States to Help Make Every Vote Count

While the NPVIC represents the most immediate and viable path toward making presidential elections truly fair, to date its progress has relied solely on state leaders and grassroots activists. While this state-level approach has resulted in some tangible progress, including the passage of the NPVIC into law in 17 states plus DC, momentum has slowed. To help additional states pass the NPVIC into law, the federal government should provide states with the data, coordination, and funding support needed to confidently implement this reform. 

By providing federal support and promoting electoral best practices, the federal government can play a vital role in building momentum toward a reality where every vote is treated equally, regardless of geography. This support can supplement ongoing state and grassroots efforts to implement the NPVIC, thus creating a multi-pronged approach at the state and federal level. To be clear, strengthening federal support will not override state control of elections. Stronger federal support can provide states with the tools necessary to take action that ensures presidential elections more accurately reflect the will of all Americans.

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has played a leading role in administering elections and promoting electoral best practices. 27 Established by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, the EAC is a federal agency tasked with promoting election integrity. 28 The EAC oversees various tasks, which include administering federal HAVA grants to states for election administration, accessibility, and technology, testing voting systems, maintaining the national mail voter registration form, and creating Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. 

The EAC has previously administered hundreds of millions in HAVA funds to dozens of states for election administration. During the most recent presidential election cycle in September 2024, the EAC reported that states had spent approximately $670 million of the $1 billion in election security funds appropriated through HAVA since 2018.29 The EAC also reported in September 2024 that 98% of the remaining $330 million in Election Security funds had already been budgeted for planned activities, demonstrating how essential these funds are to many states when they administer elections. The EAC further demonstrated its capacity to effectively control the distribution of significant federal resources by providing an additional $400 million to states from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES) grants for election administration in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“By providing federal support and promoting electoral best practices, the federal government can play a vital role in building momentum toward a reality where every vote is treated equally, regardless of geography.”

The EAC has previously administered hundreds of millions in HAVA funds to dozens of states for election administration. During the most recent presidential election cycle in September 2024, the EAC reported that states had spent approximately $670 million of the $1 billion in election security funds appropriated through HAVA since 2018.29 The EAC also reported in September 2024 that 98% of the remaining $330 million in Election Security funds had already been budgeted for planned activities, demonstrating how essential these funds are to many states when they administer elections. The EAC further demonstrated its capacity to effectively control the distribution of significant federal resources by providing an additional $400 million to states from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES) grants for election administration in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The EAC’s distribution of HAVA and CARES funds demonstrates its valuable role in shaping election administration best practices nationwide. According to the nonprofit group Issue One, as of September 2023, the top 12 states that had spent the highest amounts in HAVA grants were as follows (in descending order): 

  • California

  • Texas

  • Florida

  • Ohio

  • Pennsylvania

  • New York

  • Georgia

  • North Carolina

  • Indiana

  • Illinois

  • Virginia, 

  • Arizona. 30 

Notably, nine out of the top 12 states relying on HAVA grants at that time have yet to join the NPVIC. Given these non-NPVIC states' previous reliance on the EAC, it is well-positioned to provide them with resources to support the implementation of a national popular vote.

Many states voluntarily adhere to EAC guidelines because they are widely regarded as best practices for fair and effective election administration. Given the EAC’s nationwide influence, the President should issue a presidential memorandum encouraging the Commission to undertake a comprehensive, data-driven study examining the feasibility and implications of a national popular vote system for presidential elections. The study should assess potential effects on election integrity, security, and representational fairness, and should include an evaluation of representational disparities that exist under the current Electoral College model. 

The memorandum should also suggest inter-agency coordination with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the Department of Homeland Security to support the study, and encourage the Commission to use its findings to inform any future updates to the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, with the overarching goal of promoting election integrity and representational fairness in presidential elections. Through the memorandum, the President should provide resources to support the EAC in facilitating workshops and forums among state officials to share study results regarding the feasibility and impact of a national popular vote system. The EAC’s existing correspondence with state election officials renders it an ideal entity to facilitate these discussions.

By organizing best-practice seminars and interstate discussions among election officials and lawmakers, the EAC can share insights about a national popular vote system’s potential in reducing logistical challenges in election administration, particularly in battleground states that frequently deal with high scrutiny and recounts under the current system. The EAC can also share the anticipated effectiveness of a national popular vote system in simplifying vote counting, standardizing election results, and enhancing election integrity.

While the EAC’s instrumental role in influencing election administration can be leveraged to promote representational fairness, a recent executive order issued by the current administration directed the EAC and other government agencies to advance voter suppression tactics that threaten representational fairness. On March 25th, 2025, the current administration issued Executive Order 14248, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” which directed the EAC to enact electoral reforms designed to limit voter turnout. 31 The order asserted unilateral presidential authority over the EAC, an independent agency, by mandating the Commission to take action via an executive order rather than encouraging action via a memorandum. As a result, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the President lacks the authority to direct the EAC, an independent agency, to change federal election rules and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the EAC from implementing new voter-ID rules. 32 33 

The voter-ID provision specifically directed the EAC to mandate that prospective voters provide documentary proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote, which excludes student and employee IDs from eligibility for voter registration. This requirement creates complications for people who do not have passports or have changed their names from what appears on their birth certificate, including married women and transgender people, and effectively serves as a voter suppression tool.

The order also requires the Attorney General to take legal action against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in the final tabulation of votes for federal races. This harmful directive seeks to enable legal action aimed at discarding millions of legal votes, as many states have laws that allow for the tabulation of mail-in ballots received after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked by Election Day and received within a specified timeframe. 

Lastly, the order mandates federal agencies cease work in relation to Executive Order 14019, known as "Promoting Access to Voting." This directive prevents federal agencies from implementing strategies to enhance voter registration and participation, such as providing voter registration services during routine interactions with the public, distributing vote-by-mail applications, offering multilingual election information, and collaborating with nonpartisan organizations to facilitate voter engagement. 34 In effect, the directive prevents federal agencies from addressing systemic barriers to voting, particularly those affecting communities of color, individuals with disabilities, and other historically marginalized groups.

The President should take decisive action to rescind Executive Order 14248 due to the harmful impact the order threatens to have on voting accessibility, and fully restore Executive Order 14019 to support representational fairness. Rescinding the entirety of Executive Order 14248’s harsh provisions and replacing them with Executive Order 14019’s voter empowerment initiatives will enable the federal government to combat voter suppression tactics and improve voting accessibility. This approach will enhance election integrity while promoting fairer and more representative electoral practices at the state level.

To build on efforts to restore integrity and proactively safeguard representational fairness, the President should take executive action to establish a DOJ task force on best practices for representational fairness in presidential elections. The task force should serve as an investigative and advisory body tasked with investigating state electoral systems for outcomes that conflict with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) and the Equal Protection Clause, and issuing guidance to remedy such issues.

Rooted in the 15th Amendment’s stipulation that Americans’ equal right to vote shall not be abridged by the United States or any state on account of race or color, Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting standards, practices, or procedures that result in racial discrimination, whether intentional or not. 35 36 37 This includes electoral practices that disproportionately weaken minority voting power, even without explicit discriminatory intent.

In many instances, the Electoral College system amplifies the influence of voters in predominantly white rural states, while voters in some states with racially diverse populations are often disproportionately underrepresented because their votes carry less weight in the Electoral College. This unequal vote weighting is not merely a statistical discrepancy — it conflicts with key principles of VRA Section 2, as well as the Equal Protection Clause. The DOJ has the authority to investigate how states operating within the current Electoral College system may perpetuate historic patterns of racial disenfranchisement.

Several prominent examples of current non-NPVIC states with large underrepresented minority populations in presidential elections stand out. In Texas, nearly 40% of residents are Hispanic/Latino, while approximately 12% of residents are Black. 38 Despite making up the majority of the population in the nation’s second-most populous state, racial minorities in Texas are consistently disproportionately underrepresented in presidential elections; since Texas receives approximately 1 electoral vote per 782,250 residents, their rate of representation significantly lags several smaller, predominantly white rural states. 4

This is also the case in America’s third-most populous state, Florida, where approximately 17% of Floridians are Black, while over 27% of the population is Hispanic/Latino. 39 Florida receives approximately 1 electoral vote per 779,000 residents; meanwhile, three predominantly white rural states (Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska) have fewer than 779,000 residents total, and each currently receives 3 electoral delegates. 4

The task force should use demographic and statistical analysis to investigate how existing state electoral systems, including winner-take-all allocation, can contribute to racial vote dilution. Since this is a concern central to the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause, the task force should assess whether the Electoral College conflicts with federal voting rights protections. The task force should also examine whether the adoption of the NPVIC would serve as an effective remedy to racial vote dilution in certain states, ensuring compliance with the VRA’s anti-discrimination protections and equal protection for all voters under the law. Lastly, the task force should publish a report summarizing its findings and recommendations to ensure transparency and public trust. 

Defending State Participation in the NPVIC

One of the executive branch’s most powerful tools in election law enforcement and constitutional interpretation is the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ’s primary function in election law is to safeguard the Constitution’s protections related to voting rights, and it holds a unique position in ensuring fair and equal treatment under the law. As the executive branch’s leading federal authority on constitutional interpretation, the DOJ can shape the legal framework around election law. The President should appoint an Attorney General who supports promoting the legality of the NPVIC through DOJ advisory opinions and legal advocacy.

While the DOJ has traditionally maintained a degree of independence in enforcing election laws and interpreting constitutional issues, recent developments have significantly eroded this autonomy. Under the current administration, the DOJ effectively operates as an extension of the President’s political agenda. This reality underscores the importance of appointing an Attorney General and leadership team committed to upholding voting rights and advancing the legality of the NPVIC. 

By issuing formal legal opinions and guidance, the DOJ can offer the legal clarity and constitutional defense necessary to support and defend state participation in the NPVIC, guiding courts, state legislatures, and agencies in their approach to adopting and enforcing the compact. Under the President, the Attorney General can direct the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel to defend state participation in the NPVIC by issuing a formal legal opinion affirming the NPVIC’s constitutionality. The DOJ can leverage its role as the federal bureaucracy’s leading authority on constitutional interpretation to offer guidance on how state-based reforms like the NPVIC align with federal constitutional principles and democratic goals. 

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants states the authority to appoint electors “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” providing a constitutional foundation for the NPVIC. 6 Supreme Court precedent, most notably McPherson v. Blacker (1892), confirms that this power is plenary, meaning states retain full discretion over how they allocate their electoral votes. 40 The NPVIC respects and operates entirely within this framework, offering a method for states to exercise their existing authority in a coordinated way without disrupting federal control over the broader administration of elections.

The NPVIC does not challenge federal control over the overall administration of elections, as it instead harmonizes existing state discretion over the method by which to appoint electors. Since the NPVIC does not create new state powers or infringe upon federal supremacy, it does not trigger the Compact Clause’s requirement that interstate compacts receive congressional approval. 41 This interpretation is grounded in the Supreme Court’s decision in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), which held that interstate compacts do not require congressional consent unless they enhance state power in a way that threatens federal authority. 42 The Court further affirmed this principle in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978), emphasizing that states may form interstate agreements in areas of clearly delegated state power, such as tax collection or elector appointment, so long as those agreements do not encroach on federal supremacy. 43

In light of this legal foundation, the Department of Justice should issue a formal opinion affirming that the NPVIC is constitutionally sound, citing Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, McPherson v. Blacker, Virginia v. Tennessee, and U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission. Such an opinion should clarify that congressional approval is not required and provide legal certainty for agencies and lawmakers seeking to support or implement the compact.

Under the President, the Attorney General should also prepare for any legal challenges the NPVIC may incur by developing a DOJ litigation strategy to defend the NPVIC if it is challenged in court. This should include preparing legal arguments countering claims that the NPVIC requires congressional approval under the Compact Clause. If the NPVIC does indeed face legal challenges under the Compact Clause, the Solicitor General can file amicus curiae briefs to defend its constitutionality in any cases appearing before the Supreme Court. 44 The Civil Rights Division can also submit amicus briefs in federal appellate and district courts when the case involves federal election law or constitutional questions. 45

The DOJ should additionally monitor state-level legislative activity and intervene as necessary to clarify the legal parameters of the NPVIC, ensuring that it is not mischaracterized as unconstitutional. The DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Legal Counsel, and Civil Rights Division can each monitor state-level legislation related to the NPVIC, including state laws affecting election administration and presidential elector allocation. 45 46 47

In addition to monitoring state-level legislation, the DOJ should proactively engage with state legislators and election officials to clarify the legality of the NPVIC. These efforts will help states feel supported in implementing the NPVIC without fear of legal repercussions while also preemptively preventing misinterpretations that could lead to costly legal challenges.

The DOJ must also be prepared to address political opposition or resistance to the NPVIC at the state level. By proactively issuing legal opinions, engaging with state legislators, and preparing for litigation, the DOJ can work to safeguard the NPVIC against challenges that may arise from partisan opposition or state resistance to changing the electoral process. If key anti-NPVIC lawsuits arise, the DOJ could intervene on behalf of states that have joined the compact to ensure that cases are litigated with a strong constitutional defense from the outset. This strategy would ensure that state attorneys general do not have to defend NPVIC alone and help shape early precedent.

This holistic approach not only ensures the NPVIC’s legal soundness but also sends a strong message to courts, state legislatures, and election officials across the nation that the NPVIC aligns with both constitutional principles and democratic values. By cementing the NPVIC’s legal foundation, the DOJ can help usher in a more representative and democratic presidential election system.

Strategically Deploying Federal Resources to Enhance Election Integrity and Representational Fairness

To the fullest extent permitted by federal law, the President should direct appropriate federal agencies to assess and implement mechanisms to encourage states to enhance election integrity by passing the NPVIC into law. This should include directing relevant agencies to identify statutory mandates consistent with the goals of national security, election integrity, and representational fairness, and leveraging these mandates to prioritize states that have already passed the NPVIC into law. Securing our elections and establishing representational fairness for all voters is crucial to the health of American democracy, requiring bold executive action to encourage state support for the NPVIC. 

By strategically deploying federal resources in this manner, the President can drive momentum toward building a truly representative electoral system that enforces the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. Many federally-funded initiatives rely on fair voter representation to achieve effective public benefits. This approach will encourage states to adopt a unified and fair presidential election system that fully enfranchises those who rely on federally funded initiatives, ensuring all voters play an equal role in deciding who should lead the federal push to implement these federally funded projects, thereby maximizing the impact of federally allocated funds on Americans' lives. 

In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the Supreme Court ruled that Congressionally-allocated funds can be contingent on compliance to incentivize cooperation if the conditions meet specific criteria. 48 Specifically, the spending must be “in pursuit of the general welfare,” unambiguous and allow for states to make an informed decision, related to the federal interest in the program, and not be “independently barred by other Constitutional provisions.” Any actions taken should remain consistent with the Supreme Court’s framework in South Dakota v. Dole, while also strictly adhering to existing statutory mandates, the Spending Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act criteria. 49 50

One approach the President should take is directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to heavily prioritize states that have already passed the NPVIC into law when issuing federal funds to state or local election offices or administrators through the Homeland Security Grant Programs (HGSP), particularly through the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), a core component of HSGP

HGSP funds support state and local efforts to improve preparedness and response capabilities by funding initiatives aimed at addressing national security threats. In 2023, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) required states to dedicate at least 3% of their HGSP funds to election security needs, creating tens of millions of dollars in resources for state and local election offices. 51 In 2024, the total funds disbursed under the HGSP was $1.008 billion. 52

Election security funds are directly intended to strengthen election integrity. In heavily prioritizing state or local election offices or administrators in states that have passed the NPVIC into law when distributing HGSP funds, a future administration can create alignment between HGSP funds and the NPVIC, which strengthens election integrity by ensuring equal voting impact in presidential elections. This alignment can be accomplished by leveraging existing statutory flexibility and administrative precedent, all while creating an incentive for states to pass the NPVIC into law to secure greater access to such funding.

Under 6 U.S.C. § 605(d), states may submit multi-state grant applications, which allows compact-aligned states to collaboratively pursue election security and modernization grants to support a national popular vote system. 53 To maximize this opportunity, the President should direct the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) and Administrator of FEMA to prioritize "national election security" as a National Priority Area in the annual HSGP Notice of Funding Opportunity. This administrative action would enable funding to support upgrades to election infrastructure and interstate coordination necessary for the implementation of a national popular vote system, particularly in areas such as vote tabulation technology, secure data transmission, and regional election modeling.

Furthermore, by outlining election integrity and national vote-counting efficiency as "target capabilities" under 6 U.S.C. § 609, states could qualify for funds to conduct feasibility studies, simulations, and voter education campaigns related to the transition toward a national popular vote. 54 The President can also align such efforts with requirements that 25%–35% of HSGP funds be spent on Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities by emphasizing the need to increase public trust and reduce uncertainty in presidential elections to enhance national stability and security. 55

This approach would not require new legislation but would instead utilize the discretion embedded in existing grantmaking authority to promote electoral integrity and interstate coordination. It would simultaneously maintain full compliance with federal legal frameworks and preserve state authority over election laws and procedures.

Prioritizing NPVIC-compliant states when issuing discretionary HAVA grants offers another compelling way to align federal interest with existing statutory objectives. 52 U.S. Code § 20901 stipulates that states should use HAVA funds to: 

  • Improve the administration of elections for federal office

  • Train election officials, poll workers, and election volunteers

  • Improve voting systems and technology and methods for casting and counting votes

  • Educate voters on voting procedures, voting rights, and voting technology. 56

These statutory mandates create avenues for improving technology, training, and education to support the implementation of a national popular vote system.

52 U.S. Code § 21003, which lists the conditions for the receipt of HAVA funds, is one statute that should be explored for potential use in prioritizing NPVIC adoption when distributing election-related HAVA funds. 57 This code stipulates that states must comply with each of the laws listed in section 21145, which includes the VRA, to receive HAVA funding. 58 Based on the findings of the DOJ task force, agencies could potentially use the authority granted under 52 U.S. Code § 21003 to prioritize HAVA funds for NPVIC-compliant states to encourage state compliance with the principles of the VRA.

Endnotes:

1. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/ (accessed March 6, 2025)

2. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/533/ (accessed March 6, 2025)

3. Cornell Law School: One-person, One-vote Rule, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule (accessed March 11, 2025)

4. Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives by State: 2020 Census, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/apportionment-2020-table01.pdf (accessed March 7, 2025)

5. National Archives Distribution of Electoral Votes, https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/allocation (accessed March 7, 2025)

6. 9.2 Myths That Candidates Reach Out to All the States under the Current System, https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.2 (accessed June 16, 2025)

7. US Constitution Article II Section 1, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1 (accessed March 6, 2025)

8. California Assembly Bill No. 459, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB459 (accessed March 6, 2025)

11. New Jersey General Assembly Bill A4225, https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2006/S2695 (accessed March 6, 2025)

12. Washington Senate Bill SB 5599 - 2009-10, https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5599&Year=2009&Initiative=false (accessed March 6, 2025)

13. Massachusetts House Bill H.4156, https://malegislature.gov/Bills/186/H4156/BillHistory (accessed March 6, 2025)

15. Colorado General Assembly Bill SB19-042, https://web.archive.org/web/20190202042457/http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-042 (accessed March 6, 2025)

16. Minnesota House Bill HF 1830, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=house&f=HF1830&ssn=0&y=2023 (accessed March 6, 2025)

18. Connecticut General Assembly Bill No. 5421, https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05421&which_year=2018 (accessed March 6, 2025)

19. New Mexico Legislature Bill HB 55, https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=H&legType=B&legNo=55&year=19 (accessed March 6, 2025)

20. Hawaii Senate Bill No. 2898, https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2008/bills/SB2898_.htm (accessed March 6, 2025)

21. Rhode Island General Assembly Bill S 0346, https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/BillText/BillText13/SenateText13/S0346A.pdf (accessed March 6, 2025)

22. Maine Legislature Bill LD 1578, https://legislature.maine.gov/bills/display_ps.asp?snum=131&paper=HP1023&PID=1456 (accessed March 6, 2025)

23. Vermont General Assembly Bill S.31 (Act 10), https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2012/S.31 (accessed March 6, 2025)

24. Delaware Senate Bill 22, https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47150 (accessed March 6, 2025)

25. District of Columbia Council Bill B18-0769, https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Legislation/B18-0769 (accessed March 6, 2025)

26. National Popular Vote: Nevada, https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state/nv (accessed March 30, 2025)

27. About the EAC, https://www.eac.gov/about (accessed March 12, 2025)

28. Help America Vote Act of 2002, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ252/pdf/PLAW-107publ252.pdf (accessed March 18, 2025)

29. U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2024 Annual Report, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/EAC_2024_Annual_Report_FINAL_508c.pdf (accessed March 7, 2025)

30. Federal Funding for American Elections: An Analysis of HAVA Grants, 2018-2024, https://issueone.org/articles/federal-funding-for-american-elections-hava-grants/ (accessed March 7, 2025)

31. Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/ (accessed March 25, 2025)

32. Federal Election Assistance Commission Cancels Solicitation for PR Contract, https://www.prweek.com/article/1919514/federal-election-assistance-commission-cancels-solicitation-pr-contract (accessed June 11, 2025)

33. CLC Sues to Block Trump Administration’s Illegal Election Overreach, https://campaignlegal.org/update/clc-sues-block-trump-administrations-illegal-election-overreach (accessed June 11, 2025)

35. Voting Rights Act of 1965, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-350/pdf/COMPS-350.pdf (accessed March 7, 2025)

36. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-2-voting-rights-act (accessed March 23, 2025)

37. Constitution of the United States: Fifteenth Amendment, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-15/ (accessed March 7, 2025)

38. World Population Review: Texas Population https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/texas (accessed March 7, 2025)

39. United States Census Bureau: QuickFacts Florida https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/FL/PST045223 (accessed March 7, 2025)

41. Overview of Compact Clause, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C3-3-1/ALDE_00013531/ (accessed March 6, 2025)

42. Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/148/503/ (accessed March 28, 2025)

43. United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452 (1978), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/452/ (accessed June 16, 2025)

44. Office of the Solicitor General, https://www.justice.gov/osg (accessed March 28, 2025)

45. Civil Rights Division: Statutes Enforced by the Voting Section, https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-voting-section (accessed March 19, 2025)

46. Office of Legislative Affairs, https://www.justice.gov/ola (accessed March 28, 2025)

47. Office of Legal Counsel, https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinions-main (accessed March 19, 2025)

48. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/203/ (accessed March 6, 2025)

49. Overview of Spending Clause, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-2-1/ALDE_00013356/ (accessed March 8, 2025)

50. Cornell Law School: Administrative Procedure Act, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_procedure_act (accessed March 28, 2025)

51. Federal Homeland Security Grant Funds Directed to Election Security, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/federal-homeland-security-grant-funds-directed-election-security (accessed March 28, 2025)

52. FY 2024 Homeland Security Grant Program Fact Sheet, https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/homeland-security/fy-24-fact-sheet (accessed March 28, 2025)

53. §605. State Homeland Security Grant Program, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:6%20section:605%20edition:prelim) (accessed June 11, 2025)

55. State Homeland Security Program – LETPA Projects (SHSP-L) – Federal Fiscal Year 2024, https://egrants.gov.texas.gov/fundingopp/state-homeland-security-program-letpa-projects-shsp-l-federal-fiscal-year-2024?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed June 11, 2025)

56. Cornell Law School: 52 U.S. Code § 20901 - Payments to States for activities to improve administration of elections, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20901 (accessed March 31, 2025)

57. Cornell Law School: 52 U.S. Code § 21003 - Condition for receipt of funds, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/21003 (accessed March 31, 2025)

58. Cornell Law School: 52 U.S. Code § 21145 - No effect on other laws, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/21145 (accessed March 31, 2025)

Project 2029 is a citizen-led initiative that develops policies and ideas that serve all Americans and address the systems that do not. Want to contribute? Join the Project 2029 Organizer’s Team. We welcome organizers with various backgrounds and skills, including policy development, volunteer management, marketing, and more.  Volunteers of different skill levels and abilities are welcome to participate.