96°F
weather icon Clear

Dennis Myers: Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak cast a veto against the founders

In his veto of Assembly Bill 186, Gov. Steve Sisolak argues that he is speaking for the founding fathers (they were all men) in their cutting and splicing of the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan at the constitutional convention when they were trying to placate not the small states but the slave states, most of which happened to be the small ones.

First of all, the Virginia and New Jersey plans dealt with legislative apportionment and A.B. 186 deals with presidential electors, and one can be dealt with without affecting the other, but set that aside. What is more to the point is that Sisolak could only be speaking for the founders’ version of the presidential electors system if we used it. We don’t.

The system they devised (which is not an electoral college, by the way—the Constitution forbids electors from meeting collegially) was one system. We use a different one.

1. The founders wanted political parties kept out of the functioning of the presidential electors system. But in the years after the constitutional convention, legislators who were members of political parties usurped the founders’ system and turned the system over to the parties. Today, presidential electors are nominated in state party conventions and are what U.S. Supreme Court Justices Robert Jackson and William O. Douglas called “party lackeys and intellectual non-entities” instead of the independent leaders that the founders wanted.

2. That leads to another change the parties made in the system. The founders wanted the electors to be free agents, able to vote in the public interest. But partisan state legislators passed state laws that bind electors to vote for the political parties that nominated them. In the founders’ vision, if the public elected a Hitler, the electors would be free to overturn such a result. They are not.

3. The founders did not want states to have winner-take-all systems. They expected electors to represent districts – a proportional system. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” knew that winner-take-all victimized the slave (small) states and said the founders had district elections “mostly, if not exclusively” in mind for presidential electors. But the political parties have saddled the country with winner-take-all systems in every state except Nebraska and Maine.

These changes from the founders’ vision may serve the needs of the political parties, though it’s hard to see how it serves Sisolak’s Democratic Party, given that every single elected president who was deposed by the electors and replaced with an appointed president was a Democrat.

But it is hardly the presidential electors system the founders created, nor is Sisolak advocating or defending the founders’ creation.

Dennis Myers is an award-winning journalist who has reported on Nevada’s capital, government and politics for several decades. He has also served as Nevada’s chief deputy secretary of state.

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
THE LATEST
Tim Burke: Reflecting on dads as Father’s Day nears

Being a father is a gift that not everyone gets to experience but for those of us who are lucky enough to be a dad, the role comes with a lot of responsibility in raising children. Moms rule the house and make everything work as a family unit, but dads play an important role in teaching their children how to become good adults.

Tim Burke: Showing pride for newest graduates, reflecting on history

Life for this year’s Pahrump Valley High School graduating senior class will have quite a different immediate future in front of them than did those who were graduating during World War II.

Dan Schinhofen: Politics as usual with Yucca Mountain

The U.S. House of Representatives just released their budget and what a surprise, no funding to continue the licensing on Yucca Mountain, our national repository.

Dennis Myers: How the system was broken and why it continues

In May, the Nevada Senate voted final passage of a measure removing several sections from Nevada abortion law that are incompatible with the state’s voter-approved legal abortion statute.