The balance of power between state and national governments was one of the most contentious issues for the American Founders.

The states were important historically, but also as a way to keep government close to the people and to divide government power into as many hands as practical in order to preserve liberty.

At the Constitutional Convention small states wanted every state to have an equal voice in the national government. Large states desired just the opposite—representation based on population would give them more power.

It was a compromise that created the U.S. Congress, where states are represented equally in the Senate but according to population in the House. That compromise not only broke the deadlock that threatened to derail the Constitution—it became the foundation for the unique American system of Federalism.

The national government was set up to provide national defense, manage foreign trade, and referee disputes between the states—in short, to provide the states with safety and commerce similar to the way the British Empire did for the 13 original colonies. The states were left to manage their internal affairs and to compete with one another; thus the states are sometimes referred to as our “fifty laboratories of democracy.”

Federalism fosters diversity by allowing groups of people in different states to manage their affairs differently, to innovate or remain the same, to address local needs. And by keeping government local, dividing it up, and making it compete, Federalism protects freedom.

The American system of states is not just unique—it has been uniquely successful. Federalism is an American invention worth preserving.

This San Francisco Chronicle article does not tell the full story of today’s hearing in Nevada’s Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee.

Koza/NPV supporters were completely outnumbered. Only two people testified in favor of the Koza scheme during the hearing. Five people testified against the scheme—more would have testified in opposition to AB 413, but the committee ran out of time.

Three important points that were discussed during the hearing, but omitted from the San Francisco Chronicle story:

• If approved, the NPV compact would require a state such as Nevada to award its entire slate of electors to the candidate winning the largest plurality. Nevada would have to do this even if the plurality obtained by the winning candidate was very small (15%), even if that candidate’s support was purely regional, and even if that candidate did not or could not qualify for the ballot in Nevada.
• States have different criteria for what does or does not trigger recounts within their borders. They have different ideas of how to count a hanging chad. Inevitably, the lack of a single national standard during a recount would cause chaos, litigation, and confusion. The 2000 litigation would pale in comparison.
• Testimony was heard about the benefits that the Electoral College provides to a country as diverse as our own: It upholds the two-party system and grants stability to our political system. It ensures that presidential candidates don’t focus too exclusively on one region or special interest, ignoring those in other areas. Yet the San Francisco Chronicle did not see fit to recount one word of these arguments.

AB413, Nevada’s NPV/Koza bill, was introduced in their Assembly on March 16 and passed on April 21 (27-14). The bill now moves to their Senate, where it has been referred to the Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections.