I'm Alexander Heffner your host on the
open mind
today we continue our discussion of the
National popular vote movement with one
of its important grassroots advocates on
the eastern seaboard
Edie Lopez Reyes a Connecticut based
Republican strategist Lopez is chief
consultant of wolf and King strategies
and served on the Joint Intelligence
Operations Center Europe analytic Center
in imagery and counterterrorism from
2002 through 2010 he also served on Utah
governor Jon Huntsman's 2012 New
Hampshire presidential primary campaign
steering committee and was national
co-chairman of Republicans for Johnson
weld in 2016 a member of the National
Guard in Connecticut Lopez also returned
from a month-long training in Louisiana
congratulations and thank you for your
service thank you we appreciate it and
appreciate your time here to talk about
the national popular vote thanks for
letting me there are three states in
which you've been intimately involved in
the passage of the National popular vote
and you may remind our viewers what that
is - sure Connecticut New Mexico in
Nevada correct so as the representative
of a small state which theoretically in
the electoral college would benefit from
the compact from from the compact but
also some a small state in a competitive
election year that would not benefit
right we think of Connecticut now as
homogeneous ly Democrat it wasn't always
that way it may not always be that way
in the future but what is was your
argument to these three states and their
constituents about why we need the
national popular vote well big part of
it was my experience and in Connecticut
and defined my perspective on this
particular bill the national popular
vote interstate compact is basically a
bill that state legislatures can choose
to pass it becomes a contract between a
number of states and when we reach the
270
of college vote threshold it activates
the compact which means that the
election then would be these states
would take into account what the popular
vote result is and put the weight of
that result on the electoral college
vote so they can allocate to me as a
resident of Connecticut and as a
Republican in Connecticut specifically I
felt that the the party as in other
states of New England like Rhode Island
another state where I actually lived and
was active in the party for a while used
to worked for Senator Shay fee ran for
office there when you have a one party
that's dominating the the electoral
process
year after year election after election
it really in a lot of ways that it
really creates an environment where
you're not having healthy debate you're
not having healthy debate you're not
really seeing both sides of an issue as
often as you should it creates a lot of
a policy of incongruities in my opinion
and and so in connecticut when we when i
notice this fly and I saw the
presidential elections were being
deployed in the state for example in
2012 I think we donated about 80 million
dollars to both major parties and got
about 300 dollars back you realize that
there's a potential for well not a
potential there is a lack of
infrastructure and one of the one of the
parties and when one side of the
political aisle when you have this you
basically have very little in the way of
in the form of outreach and effective
constituent worked with constituents is
not very efficient you end up in a
situation where people are exposed to
one message only and it has a down
ballot effect it's not just about the
presidential election has an impact on
the statewide offices even the local
offices so you think that the Republican
Party would be more robust if the
National popular vote was adopted as a
Republican I do as a Republican but I
should say that one of the things that I
think this bill is afflicted by in most
of the states that we've worked and is
the fact that it's a truly bipartisan
bill it's the word compromise has become
kind of a toxic where these days but the
reality is that you have a group of
people that say the popular vote should
carry more weight in the elections
probably the overall weight and then you
have conservatives like myself who say
well we need to preserve the electoral
college for a number
and I think this is one of the things
that happens in the debate over this
bill you have a lot of people who say
well we want to pass the bill because we
want to get rid of the electoral college
but that's not what it does and the
reason I mentioned this is one of the
challenges that we face as Republicans
is making the case that the electoral
college would be preserved under the
compact and and also making people
understand that ultimately the the what
the benefit is to the voters
the disadvantage right now is it's a
it's an issue of the those that are in
power versus the voters you when you say
it would not erase the electoral college
I'd use that terminology you mean
because each vote each state is still
voting with its electors according to
how the state decided exactly so in
effect it's not an aberration from the
Constitution it is erasing the idea that
the electoral college can accommodate a
situation in which the popular vote
winner is not elected correct it's an
exercise in that constitutional right
the state has to to vote for president
in fact we know the Constitution has
basically given States the right to
decide how to elect a president and
taking that a step further the
legislators can decide how to allocate
their electoral college votes so it
doesn't get rid of the that system it
just basically says let's do it based on
who wins a majority vote throughout the
entire country right and and in effect
let's say in if Iowa passed this if Iowa
voted for Donald Trump again in 2020 or
let's say a future nominee in 2020 for a
Republican nominee that nominee does not
win the popular vote but wins the state
of Iowa
if legislation accordingly was passed
those votes would go to the national
popular vote winner and not the winner
right in Iowa right now you have under
two hundred electoral votes in agreement
one 118 right and potentially 195 with
the addition of Nevada but in Nevada
right this
summer the governor vetoed the
legislation there's also a pending
legislation that passed in one in Maine
and was voted down another chamber and
these states are saying in effect we are
more valuable in the traditional
electoral college math which is the
state voting according to how that state
votes and not how the nation votes what
would you say now to governor since a
lack and potentially to Governor Mills
in in Nevada and Maine respectively who
are afraid of negating the will of their
voters in their respective states well I
think what's important to consider is
when the state is a swing state when
it's one of the twelve ten or twelve
states where the presidential campaigns
deploy expend a lot of resources and
make a worthwhile investment those
states are going to have a smaller
interest or not much of an interest in
adopting a system like this but those
things change you know I mean you could
probably argue that you know 20 years
ago there are more swing state so you go
fit back further back you have even more
it's just the way of the culture the
political culture adjusts to the current
system and so in a state like Nevada for
example they price they'll feel like a
very competitive state but the reality
is it's becoming a much bluer state you
have a couple of counties basically that
have become much bluer than they were
before I think that the holdout is in
the northwestern part of the state you
have a pretty Republican stronghold a
pretty strong Republican County and they
might not see the valley in the same way
but the reality is once the state begins
to shift in a different direction
they're gonna start reconsidering and
this is your argument that a national
popular vote makes every vote
competitive correct it instead of having
a winner-take-all system so when they I
try to explain to people is every voter
is a swing voter exactly the the the
compact does not is not an attack does
not seem seek to purge the electoral
college that's the biggest mistake the
biggest misinterpretation people have of
the bill what it seeks to do is to get
rid of the winner-take-all system that
extinguishes votes in different states
you know in California the Republican
votes would now count
in Utah the Democratic votes would now
count it makes those vote that elevates
says well let's make some valid gives
them a voice in the entire system do you
think based on your work that the
Supreme Court would ultimately if this
was tested constitutionally uphold this
pact as legitimate I have feel they
would because it is constitutional we're
basically trying to get rid of something
that's been done at the state level
which is the winner-take-all system that
we have in 48 of the 50 states basically
the court would be saying to these
states you don't have autonomy you can't
decide how to allocate your electors and
that would be a breach of federalism in
a major major sense so I mean there are
conservatives who take a different view
than you in conservative in adhering to
the conventional policy of the Electoral
College but that winner-take-all concept
was never ratified into the Constitution
on a state-by-state basis except for the
individual states Constitution right
it wasn't until 1880 that all these
states adopted the winner-take-all
system so you're making are you making
this argument in defense of federalism
if it is and in fact I think the true
conservative view would actually honor
the perspective that there's a
pliability that the founding fathers
instituted through the system that we
have to be able to adapt to changing
circumstances Fred Thompson senator Fred
Thompson used to make this case that was
one of the big reasons he supported the
compact so how do you see a realistic
path to 270 at this point because there
have been some major wins in this twenty
nineteen year and as I said you know
there was a point at which you made half
the delegates or half the electors now
you have more than half the electors and
since Pam Wilmot of common cause
Massachusetts joined us there have been
more gains right how does your
experience in Connecticut where this
passed and they are part of the compact
now informed the way you envision a
successful campaign so that by 2021
for 2028 this is actually implemented so
one of the things that I experienced was
Connecticut was more difficult to work
on because at that point the views on
this issue had cemented legislators had
kind of adopted a perspective on it it
was really tough to reach out to
constituents who had not already heard
from their legislators and a lot of that
came a lot of their perspective is
informed by their respective echo
chambers you know like their their their
parties for example think tanks that are
orbiting around those parties and I
think that the the key thing is to make
clear this is a bipartisan bill that
this is a bill that's in the interest of
voters not of particular parties that
it's not a democratic or a Republican
bill it's important to make a very
strong case of this is not about getting
really over the electoral college it's
actually a way to exercise in the
college in a way that fits the states
but also the voters in particular and
and I think when I look at the
experiences for example in Nevada and
New Mexico the timing is a big thing
going out and talking to the voters at
an early stage and letting them know how
the bill works what it does is the most
important thing so the most critical
thing the paramount piece in this effort
that I see is talking to voters this is
not about parties it's not about the
elected officials it's about empowering
voters whether they're Republican or
Democrat and even third party voters can
find a value in this you know you had in
2016
having done the Johnson and weld thing
they had a I think was three and a half
million votes total which is a more than
the votes in each of 25 states now that
doesn't mean through the system you're
gonna elect of libertarian unless they
did have that majority but it does mean
that those votes count and they have an
impact on the party I'm a libertarian
Republican for the most part so to me
it's important that the pendulum move in
that direction in the Republican Party
for example and those potential votes
act as a spoiler in effect but they are
they are determinative of an outcome
because those tens of thousands hundreds
of thousands you say millions of votes
for Johnson and weld if you take a share
of them and apply them in those
battlegrounds that were decisive at
Pennsylvania Michigan
Wisconsin the election could have gone
the other way so they correct
they had a spoiling a spoiling function
right but it's a democratic idea that
more than one or two parties should be
competitive so you are making the
argument Edie that it is a Pro
federalism case for preserving the
electoral college that gives States
autonomy but a major argument among the
progressive or liberals who do support
this is that we have an anti-democratic
system now so the will of the country
writ large is is neglected and that that
is problematic and and that to sustain a
republic or a democracy the opponents of
your efforts the national popular vote
they they like to say we're a republic
not a democracy right if you go to the
founding document but do we want to have
an anti-democratic or undemocratic
republic isn't that a question we should
be considering - well I think the the
key thing to focus on is that this
doesn't have to be a partisan issue and
so the message that giving more voters a
say actually all voters a say and
getting them more weight in the system
is a democratic ideal I think it betrays
what the founding fathers actually
wanted and I think Madison were to see
the results in Bush v Gore sure Trump
the Clinton right to see you know
millions of votes denied relevance
wholesale sure I think you make a valid
point but I think the thing to consider
too is that in these cases Democrats
tend to be a bit more enamored with
those historical incidents to make the
case for this bill and they're not
incorrect in making the case the only
thing that you have to understand is
that the campaign's would have been run
very differently and and so you'd have
campaigns that it unfolded very
differently would have paid more
attention of the 50 states so we don't
know that would have been the outcome in
those two elections under the compact
had
active that at that point you have a
candidate now Beto O'Rourke
who is going to a lot of these
non-traditional battleground states
he was just in Oklahoma he's making a
play partly I think because of his Texas
roots and the idea that he wants his
party the Democratic Party to be
competitive in the Lone Star State right
and I do wonder
Edie if you have candidates it's a
chicken and egg question if you have
candidates who were not gonna play by
the rules of the Electoral College maybe
the folks in these states that have been
neglected will wake up just by virtue of
the candidates operating as if we had a
democratic system that treated everyone
equal well I think the reason why people
are taking the chance is 2016 was a very
bizarre election I certainly don't think
Trump had a chance of being elected I
don't even think he thought he had a
chance of being elected and and when you
look at the the blue wall which you've
probably discussed you know the idea
there certain states intend to just vote
Democratic we know what Trump pierced
the wall with Wisconsin Michigan and
Pennsylvania so I think when you have
such a large pool of Democratic
candidates they have to figure out a
creative way to make an appeal to a much
broader base or a more more diverse base
of umay meaning geographically and in
other ways too and so I think the math
right now is a little bit of a wild-card
and people are trying to figure out how
to make things work what's going to make
them more electable and I think that a
lot of that might play into the the
things that will underscore the value
having a national popular national part
of the world an interstate compact I
think they'll underscore some of the
things that would make that a more
viable system for us but I think that
much of what you're talking about as a
result of what happened in 2016 I think
2020 is going to be very similar I mean
whether you mount of candidates running
is that on the Democratic ticket alone I
think that's going to shape the
elections even though that's we're
talking about the primaries now it'll
certainly have an impact on the overall
discourse how the campaigns unfold how
they function and eventually that's
going to impact the general election to
the two candidates so far who were
arguing most passionately for an end to
the
way the college has operated to date new
rules for the electoral college in their
mine are necessary are better O'Rourke
and Pete Budaj these are men who
represent or did represent Texas and
Indiana I think that is further evidence
of our idea that these folks who are
campaigning and non-traditional
Republican territory are making that
point and they're still going to these
states now they understand what it feels
like to be left out of an electoral
process of the national level but they
also understand there's potential for
change I mean one of the cases that we
make when we talk about the blue wall
the Republicans so they understand we
make a case for Florida which is likely
to become a blue state
some of us debate with our text as well
I think it will when you look at cities
like Austin and people like Roark for
example I think you see the potential
for things to change in those states and
that means further realignment and less
swing states it makes it actually makes
the system more but these candidates
understand that and that's why they're
making this effort to make a different
kind of outreach and you don't think
that candidates who agree with the
national popular vote will be chastised
or looked down upon if they do go out
and campaign all over the country it
does it doesn't matter their position on
the national popular vote if they are
showing that every vote really does
matter to them whether it's in the
traditional electoral college system or
not I think it depends on how they
articulate it I see a lot of Democrats
and getting the case that they want to
get rid of the Electoral College
Republicans don't want that this bill in
a sense again it's becoming a chocolate
word but there's a compromise value to
it which is saying look let's preserve
the state's right to allocate the
college votes as the state sees fit
right but let's put the weight of the
popular vote on that system you know
it's it's really the best compromise
between both parties but the sound bites
that you're hearing out there are
basically centered around that debate
beto and Pete I think sound more like
you in making the argument III mean just
date but you I know you're referring to
coastal liberal communities that may
position it differently
ask you this is there a viable path for
national popular vote movement efforts
in referenda and initiatives can it be
sanctioned by individual states through
that process or are you only
contemplating legislative completion of
this effort is focused on legislators
and the reason why is because of the way
it's set up in the Constitution
legislators have to make that choice
certainly I would imagine that state
could consult with their voters through
referendums and things like that but I'm
not sure that's something we would be
involved in but how are you gonna get
traction and some of these states where
it's dead on arrival that's what well
that's one of things that I've been
helping the movement with I go so how do
how are you doing I speak with
Republican Party leaders I speak with
activists from think tanks I speak with
people who have run for office but
haven't been successful they're still
opinion leaders in the community so
basically I'm going out there and
helping the organization deliver this
message and make it clear that what it
is that we're doing so again I think the
biggest misunderstanding is that we get
rid of the electoral college that's not
what the bill is full understood but
what are some states that our viewers
might not expect this to have traction
in don't you don't have to reveal names
of legislators who have said to you
private Ernie I'm in but what are some
states where this may get further
traction I personally feel there could
be a lot of great success in states like
Utah and Oklahoma Republican states I
think that that how about any big ticket
items big debate crass but you got to
get to 270 hey that's a really good
question I think the reality is we
probably be more focused on the smaller
states the bigger states you know when I
think of big states that are gonna see
it change it depends on what happens and
the upcoming elections if Florida
becomes a bluer state they're gonna be
considering this bill because they're no
longer gonna be a viable state in the
and within that swing state a bloc that
that of the presidential candidate
exploit right now but you said it's a
nonpartisan issue public in legislators
shame is that our control by the GOP but
so far it's only chambers that are in
controlled by the Democratic that had
ever passed oh right I mean but we also
had a lot of Democrats opposed it like
the governor for example in Nevada we
just saw that happen right so here in
New York Democrats a lot of them opposed
the bill while Republicans and
conservatives supported it you know so
it depends on the state and what's going
on and their analysis of how things
could unfold in a presidential election
but right now it's up to state
legislatures and and you're saying in
effect that state legislators that have
been dominated by the Republican Party
have to be more at co-equal correct
representatively yeah in order for this
to get to the floor there there have to
be more active Democratic Party
operations in states and large small
medium we know that so many you know a
super majority at one point of state
legislators were controlled by the GOP
so right the more movement you see in
co-equal representation and state
legislatures I would think you would get
sure more traction the reason I
mentioned in the in the couple minutes
we have left initiatives in referenda is
because it seems to me that in we're not
going to get immediate changes with
respect to composition partisan
composition in South Carolina Georgia
Tennessee so maybe if you if you require
folks to have the debate maybe you need
a an initiative or a referendum it would
be a vote that requires the state
constitution to consider this question
and that's why I think that maybe those
tools could help you legislate this
because if if the compact I mean in some
states you might be able to get it on
the ballot mm-hmm
so to close maybe just answer these two
questions all right would it be
acceptable if it was approved by the
people in a referendum would that be
acceptable according to Compaq
rulz and second can you use those tools
to help get the debate started in the
state legislatures I think the the
answer to the second question is that
that could be a catalyst to having the
debate become more vigorous and robust
piece you know in any given state I
think the first question I think that
our organization is really focused on
letting the states decide how they're
going to get to that point we just
advocate for the compact whether they
choose to have referendums or anything
it would elevate escalate the debate
within their state that would be up to
them completely but our our philosophy
really is to preserve the states right
to do something and so when we talk
about constitutional changes and things
like that one thing that our compact
state says if a state wants to pull out
of this Agreement they're welcome to do
so so there's a certain amount of
pliability and it's a very conservative
perspective in a lot of ways that we try
to preserve but if the state
constitution allows for changes to the
Constitution via a vote among South
Carolinians for instance that would be
acceptable to you if this if the state
governing itself says you the people
South Carolina can decide if we enter
into this pact it would certainly be
acceptable but our mission has been
focused on assuring legislators to
support the bill and to agree with the
bill so the mechanisms and the
instruments that they use to get to that
point is a different story to them
exactly thank you for your time today
thanks for having me on here and thanks
to you in the audience I hope you join
us again next time for a thoughtful
excursion into the world of ideas until
then keep an open mind please visit the
open mind website at
thirteen.org/openmind to view this
program online or to access over 1,500
other interviews and do check us out on
twitter and facebook @openmindtv for
updates on future programming
continuing production of the open mind
has been made possible by grants from
and Olenick Joan Ganz Cooney Lawrence B
Benenson the engleson Family Foundation
Alfred P sloan Foundation the John s and
James L Knight Foundation William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation Joann and
Kenneth Wellner Foundation and from the
corporate community mutual of America
you
