Perhaps you’ve heard about this California voting plan being put forth by the Republicans in a statewide referendum — the sneakily-named Presidential Election Reform Act? It would do away with the state’s winner-take-all system and instead award California’s electoral votes by Congressional district.

In 2004, Kerry won all 54 of California’s votes; had this law been in effect at the time, Kerry would have won only 31 of those votes, and Bush would have won 22 of them instead of zero. The Democratic presidential candidate routinely wins California, so this is essentially an attempt by the Republicans to award the Republican presidential candidate a number of electoral votes equivalent to those of a big state such as Ohio, Pennslyvania, or Illinois. If the 2008 election is as close as the last two elections, this plan would — if it passed — put a big dent in the Democrats’ hopes of recapturing the White House next year.

The only thing is – it’s unconstitutional.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution states, in part:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…

(Emphasis added.)

Only the state legislature is allowed to determine how the state’s electoral votes are distributed. It can’t be done by a popular referendum. It’s pretty straightforward. Game, set, match.

If this referendum gets on the California ballot next spring and it passes, expect it to get blocked by a court injunction.

I would hope the U.S. Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. Of course, Bush v. Gore should have been a clear-cut case, too — but I don’t think the Supreme Court will do it again. The law is even clearer this time. (But never say never.)

If you’re interested, read these comments to find out more.