The League of Women Voters supports the Environment
As citizens of the world we must protect our planet from the physical, economic and public health effects of climate change while also providing pathways to economic prosperity.
Why it matters
The preservation of the physical, chemical and biological integrity
of the earth’s ecosystem is essential for maximum protection of public
health and the environment. The interrelationships of air, water and
land resources should be recognized in designing environmental
safeguards. The federal government should have the major role in setting
standards for environmental protection and pollution control.
What we’re doing
Since the 1960s, we have been at the forefront of efforts to protect air, land and water resources. Our approach to environmental protection and pollution control is one of problem solving. The League’s environmental goals aim to prevent ecological degradation, and to reduce and control pollutants before they go down the sewer, up the chimney or into the landfill. We support vigorous enforcement mechanisms, including sanctions for states and localities that do not comply with federal standards as well as substantial fines for noncompliance.
Press Release January 17, 2020: Our Children’s Trust
Decision of Divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Primarily for Juliana Plaintiffs, but Holds Federal Judiciary Can Do Nothing to Stop the U.S. Government in Causing Climate Change and Harming Children
The Juliana 21 Continue to Fight for Justice in the Biggest Climate Lawsuit in America
Eugene, Oregon – Today, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “reluctantly” concluded that the youth plaintiffs’ case in Juliana v. United States must be made to the Congress, the President, or to the electorate at large. The decision finds federal courts cannot provide the youth with a remedy for their climate change injuries. In her dissent, District Judge Josephine L. Staton wrote that the youth plaintiffs brought suit to enforce the most basic structural principal embedded in our system of liberty: the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.
Judge Staton would hold that the youth plaintiffs have standing to challenge the government’s conduct, have articulated claims under the Constitution, and have presented sufficient evidence to press those claims at trial. Counsel for the youth plaintiffs vowed to ask the full Ninth Circuit to review the determination that federal courts can do nothing to address an admitted constitutional violation.
Julia Olson , executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, commented: “The Juliana case is far from over. The Youth Plaintiffs will be asking the full court of the Ninth Circuit to review this decision and its catastrophic implications for our constitutional democracy. The Court recognized that climate change is exponentially increasing and that the federal government has long known that its actions substantially contribute to the climate crisis. Yet two of the judges on the Panel refused to set the standard for redressing the constitutional violation, to protect our Nation’s children. The standard is a question of science that should be determined at trial. The majority opinion ignores the fact that we have yet to go to trial on the issue of redressability.”
There were numerous points in which the majority opinion of Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz found in favor of the youth plaintiffs, including: the evidence showed climate change was occurring at an increasingly rapid pace; copious expert evidence established that the unprecedented rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels stemmed from fossil fuel combustion and will wreak havoc on the Earth’s climate if unchecked; the record conclusively established that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions; and the record established that the government’s contribution to climate change was not simply a result of inaction.
The opinion also recognized that the youth plaintiffs had suffered concrete and particularized injuries from climate change. The panel held the district court properly found the youth plaintiffs met the Article III causation requirement because there was at least a genuine factual dispute as to whether a host of federal policies were a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries.
Yet, two of the three judges held the youth plaintiffs’ claimed injuries were not redressable by an Article III court. Specifically, the majority held it was beyond the power of federal courts to order, design, supervise, or implement the youth plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan where any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted to the executive and legislative branches. In short, the majority ruled the remedies the youth plaintiffs have requested must be implemented by Congress or the President, not the courts.
Philip Gregory , with Gregory Law Group of Redwood City, California and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, stated: “Despite finding the government was actively contributing to climate change, and despite the fact the court found these youth plaintiffs submitted evidence of concrete and particularized injuries, and despite the fact that the youth plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to show federal policies were a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ constitutional injuries, a majority of the panel concluded there was nothing federal courts could do to address these constitutional violations.
We strongly disagree with this conclusion and will take this determination to the full Ninth Circuit.” Kelsey Juliana , the 23-year-old named plaintiff in Juliana and resident of Eugene, Oregon, said: “ THIS ISN’T OVER. Prepare for a petition for review en banc to the 9th circuit as we refuse to do anything but move forward and ultimately win. Courts do have an obligation to address issues of constitutional, existential crisis, like climate change.
Levi Draheim , 12-year-old plaintiff from Satellite Beach, Florida, commented: “We will continue this case because only the courts can help us. We brought this lawsuit to secure our liberties and protect our lives and our homes. Much like the civil rights cases, we firmly believe the courts can vindicate our constitutional rights and we will not stop until we get a decision that says so.”
Juliana v. United States is not about the government’s failure to act on climate. Instead, these young plaintiffs between the ages of 12 and 23, assert that the U.S. government, through its affirmative actions in creating a national energy system that causes climate change, is depriving them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and has failed to protect essential public trust resources. The case is one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, all supported by Our Children’s Trust, and all seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.
NPV seeks to ensure that the presidential candidate who wins the most
popular votes nationwide is elected president. When a state passes
legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that
all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever
presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the
candidate who won the vote in just that state.
These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the
electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the
compact. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral
votes would have to pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any
state’s bill could take effect.
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The Compact is a state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected.
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions
possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI,
VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big
states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia. The bill will take
effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes. The bill
has passed at least one chamber in 8 additional states with 75 more
electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK). A total of 3,408
state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it.
The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem
from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state
legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral
votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.
Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012, as shown on the map, all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored.
Campaign events in 2012
Here’s
a map of US with state sizes based on the number of campaign events in
2012. This is how the candidates view the relevant voters (and their
issues). Notice that 38 states are missing altogether:
State sizes based on campaign events in 2012
Similarly,
in 2016, almost all campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where
Trump’s support was between 43% and 51%. Two-thirds of the events (273
of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).
Campaign events in 2016
This
is how the US map looks with state sizes based on the number of
campaign events in 2016 (missing states received no campaign events):
State sizes based on campaign events in 2016
State
winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground”
states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as
many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement
exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
Also, because of state winner-take-all statutes, five of our 45
Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular
votes nationwide. The 2000 and 2016 elections are the most recent
examples of elections in which a second-place candidate won the White
House. Near-misses are also common under the current state-by-state
winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. A shift of 59,393
votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President
Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states
exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall
appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number
of Electors….” The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes
is state law. It is not in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all
rule was used by only three states in 1789, and all three repealed it by
1800. It was not until the 11th presidential election (1828) that even half the states used winner-take-all laws.
The National Popular Vote interstate compact will go into effect when
enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is,
enough to elect a President (270 of 538). At that time, every voter in
the country will acquire a direct vote for a group of at least 270
presidential electors supporting their choice for President. All of
this group of 270+ presidential electors will be supporters of the
candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states and
DC—thus making that candidate President.
In contrast, under the current system, a voter has a direct voice in
electing only the small number of presidential electors to which their
state is entitled. Under NPV, every voter directly elects 270+
electors.
Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote and at www.NationalPopularVote.com.
Learn More
Click on any of the topics below to learn more. You can also read about the numerous myths.
Today, 48 states (all except Maine and Nebraska) have a so-called “winner-take-all” law that awards all of a state’s electors to the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes inside each separate state.
These winner-take-all laws are state laws—they are not
part of the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all method of choosing
presidential electors was never debated by the 1787 Constitutional
Convention or mentioned in the Federalist Papers.
Only three states had winner-take-all laws in the first
presidential election in 1789, and all three repealed them by 1800. In
1789, electors were chosen from congressional districts in
Massachusetts, from special presidential-elector districts in Virginia,
and by counties in Delaware. The Governor and his Council appointed the
state’s presidential electors in New Jersey. State legislatures
appointed presidential electors in the other states.
In the nation’s first competitive presidential election in 1796,
Jefferson lost the Presidency by three electoral votes because
presidential electors were chosen by district in the heavily
Jeffersonian states of Virginia and North Carolina, and Jefferson lost
one district in each state.
On January 12, 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote James Monroe (then governor of Virginia):
“On the subject of an
election by a general ticket [winner-take-all], or by districts, … all
agree that an election by districts would be best, if it could be
general;but while 10 states choose either by their legislatures or by a general ticket [winner-take-all],it is folly and worse than follyfor the other 6 not to do it.”
As a result, Virginia quickly passed a winner-take-all law in time for the 1800 election—thereby assuring Jefferson of all the state’s electoral votes.
Meanwhile, the Federalist majority in the legislature of John
Adam’s home state of Massachusetts—alarmed by rising support for
Jefferson in the state—repealed the state’s district system—thereby
assuring John Adams of all the state’s electoral votes in 1800.
This triggered a domino effect in which each state’s dominant
political party adopted winner-take-all so that it could deliver the
maximum number of electoral votes to its party’s nominee. Ten states
enacted winner-take-all by 1824 when Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
said:
now existing in 10 States was … not [the offspring] of any disposition to give fair play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading men of those states, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the State.”
By 1836, all but one state had enacted laws specifying that
their state’s voters would vote for presidential electors on a
winner-take-all basis. By 1880, all states were using this system.
In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Cleveland won the national
popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. When Democrats won control
of the legislature in the then-regularly-Republican state of Michigan in
1890, they replaced winner-take-all with district election of
presidential electors. The Republicans challenged the Democrat’s change.
In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld district elections and ruled in McPherson v. Blacker:
“The constitution does not
provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor
that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket [i.e., the
winner-take-all rule], nor that the majority of those who exercise the
elective franchise can alone choose the electors. … In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.”
The Republicans restored winner-take-all in Michigan as soon as they regained control of the state legislature.
Maine adopted district elections for its electors in 1969, and Nebraska did so in 1992.
Massachusetts has changed its method of appointing electors 11 times.
Contrary to what some may think, the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes decreases the political clout of small states in presidential elections.
The eight smallest states (i.e., those with three electoral votes, including DC) together
received only one of the nation’s 952 general-election campaign events
in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections. In contrast, the closely divided
battleground state of Wisconsin (with about the same population as the
eight smallest states) received 40 events. Wisconsin received more
attention despite having only 10 electoral votes—compared to 24
electoral votes for the eight states.
Presidential candidates ignore the smallest states—not because
they are small—but because they are one-party states in presidential
elections. Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of
awarding electoral votes political power comes from being a closely
divided battleground state.
The 13 smallest states (i.e., those with three or four electoral
votes, including DC) are not predominantly Republican in presidential
elections. In fact, these 13 jurisdictions have split 7-to-6 (or 8-to-5)
in favor of the Democrats in all but one presidential election since
1992 (and 6-to-7 Republicans once).
President Trump did not win the Electoral College in 2016
because of small states. All of the 13 smallest states gave their
electoral votes to the same party in 2016, 2012, 2008, and 2004 (except
for President Trump receiving one electoral vote in Maine by winning its
2nd congressional district). Even if the 25
smallest states are considered, Iowa was the only state to switch
parties between 2012 and 2016, and Iowa’s six electoral votes alone did
not elect Trump.
The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current
state-by-state winner-take-all system has been long recognized by
prominent officials from these states. In 1966, Delaware led a group of
12 predominantly small states in an effort to get state winner-take-all
laws declared unconstitutional.
Another indication that small states do not benefit from the
current system is that Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the
District of Columbia are among the 16 jurisdictions that have enacted
the National Popular Vote interstate compact into law.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system actually shifts
power from small and medium-sized states to an accidental handful of
closely divided battleground states.
A nationwide vote for President offers a way for small states to
become relevant in presidential elections by making every one of their
voters count directly toward the presidential candidate of their choice.
How would candidates campaign in a nationwide election for President
in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving
the most popular votes throughout the entire United States?
Some people have speculated that a national popular vote for
President would cause campaigns to concentrate disproportionately on
heavily populated metropolitan areas and ignore rural areas.
However, there is no need to speculate about whether candidates would do this.
If there were any tendency for candidates to overemphasize big
cities or ignore rural areas, we would see evidence of that tendency in
the way campaigns are actually conducted today in the dozen or so closely divided “battleground” states where presidential campaigns take place.
Here are the facts as to how candidates actually campaigned for the votes of the 95 million people living inside the dozen closely divided battleground states:
The biggest metro areas of the battleground states actually
received a combined total of 191 general-election campaign visits—
compared to 188 if visits had been based strictly on population.
The areas outside each state’s biggest metro area received 427
visits— compared to 430 if visits had been based strictly on population.
In other words, real-world candidates hew closely to population
when allocating campaign visits within battleground states—indeed they
did so with almost surgical precision. Presidential candidates—advised
by the nation’s most astute political strategists—campaign in this
manner because every vote inside a battleground state is equal, and
because the candidate receiving the most popular votes inside the state
wins everything. There is no evidence that big metro areas exert any
magnetic or intoxicating attraction causing candidates to concentrate
disproportionately on heavily populated metropolitan areas or ignore
rural areas.
For more details on how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, see this memo.
Large cities will not dominate a national popular vote – they are
simply not as large as some people think compared to the entire
population of the country:
The biggest 100 cities contain just one-sixth of the U.S. population (16%), and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The rural areas (i.e., places outside the nation’s Metropolitan
Statistical Areas) contain one-sixth of the U.S. population, and they
voted 60% Republican in 2004. That is, the biggest cities are almost
exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan
composition.
The remaining two thirds of the U.S. population live inside a
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), but outside the central city. These
suburban areas are evenly divided politically.
You can read more about the myths of big cities.
As was discussed in the previous section, a close analogy for a
national campaign is studying presidential campaigns in battleground
states, where they do indeed campaign in cities, suburban and rural
areas. While rural areas have lower population density, advertising and
campaigning costs in those areas tend to be significantly lower than urban areas. The candidates need to win votes in all those areas to succeed overall.
Here are the number of general-election presidential campaign events
(between the party convention and the general election) by state for
the 2008, 2012 and 2016 elections:
Electoral votes
State
2008 events
2012 events
2016 events
9
Alabama
3
Alaska
11
Arizona
10
6
Arkansas
55
California
1
9
Colorado
20
23
19
7
Connecticut
1
3
D.C.
1
3
Delaware
29
Florida
46
40
71
16
Georgia
3
4
Hawaii
4
Idaho
20
Illinois
1
11
Indiana
9
2
6
Iowa
7
27
21
6
Kansas
8
Kentucky
8
Louisiana
4
Maine
2
3
10
Maryland
11
Massachusetts
16
Michigan
10
1
22
10
Minnesota
2
1
2
6
Mississippi
1
10
Missouri
21
2
3
Montana
5
Nebraska
2
6
Nevada
12
13
17
4
New Hampshire
12
13
21
14
New Jersey
5
New Mexico
8
3
29
New York
15
North Carolina
15
3
55
3
North Dakota
18
Ohio
62
73
48
7
Oklahoma
7
Oregon
20
Pennsylvania
40
5
54
4
Rhode Island
9
South Carolina
3
South Dakota
11
Tennessee
1
38
Texas
1
6
Utah
1
3
Vermont
13
Virginia
23
36
23
12
Washington
1
5
West Virginia
1
10
Wisconsin
8
18
14
3
Wyoming
538
Total
300
253
399
In 2008, only 3 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4
electoral votes) received any of the 300 general-election campaign
events. The closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire received
12 events. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional
district) received 2 events. The District of Columbia received one
event. All the other states in this group were ignored. The small
states are ignored not because they are small, but because (except for
New Hampshire), they are one-party states in presidential elections.
In 2008, only 7 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer
electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events.
New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada each received a substantial number of
events (12, 7, and 12, respectively). New Mexico (a battleground state
at the time) received 8 events. West Virginia and the District of
Columbia received 1 event each. All the other small states in this group
were ignored.
In 2012, only 1 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral
votes) received any of the 253 general-election campaign events, namely
the closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire. All the other
states in this group were ignored.
In 2012, only 3 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer
electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events.
All the other small states were ignored. The 3 states that received
attention were the closely divided battleground states of New Hampshire,
Iowa, and Nevada. All the other states in this group were ignored.
In 2016, only 2 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral
votes) received any of the 399 general-election campaign events. New
Hampshire received 21 because it was a closely divided battleground
state. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional district)
received 3 campaign events because its 2nd congressional district was closely divided (and, indeed, Trump carried it). All the other states in this group were ignored.
In 2016, only 9 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer
electoral votes) received any general-election campaign events. New
Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada received attention because they were closely
divided battleground states. Maine and Nebraska (which award electoral
votes by congressional district) received some attention, since one of
their congressional districts was closely divided. New Mexico received
some attention (from the Republican campaign only) because former New
Mexico Governor Johnson was running for President and it appeared his
strong home-state support might make the state competitive. Utah
received some attention from Republicans because the McMullin candidacy
might have made the state competitive. Connecticut and Mississippi also
received one campaign event. All the other small states in this group
were ignored.
Another way to look at why states are ignored in presidential
elections is to see which states consistently vote for one party or the
other. This table shows that 16 states voted Democratic and 22 states
voted Republican in all five presidential elections from 2000–2016.
Because of the winner-take-all approach that states use to assign their
electoral votes, these states, plus some of the others, are almost
certain to deliver all their electoral votes to one candidate or the
other, and therefore are ignored by the candidates.
Dem 5/5
16 states
Dem 4/5
5 states
Dem 3/5
4 states
Dem 2/5
2 states
Dem 1/5
2 states
Dem 0/5
22 states
CA (55)
MI (16)
VA (13)
FL (29)
IN (11)
AL (9)
CT (7)
NH (4)
CO (9)
OH (18)
NC (15)
AK (3)
DE (3)
NM (5)
NV (6)
AR (6)
DC (3)
PA (20)
IA (6)
AZ (11)
HI (4)
WI (10)
GA (16)
IL (20)
ID (4)
MA (11)
KS (6)
ME (4)
KY (8)
MD (10)
LA (8)
MN (10)
MO (10)
NJ (14)
MS (6)
NY (29)
MT (3)
OR (7)
NE (5)
RI (4)
ND (3)
VT (3)
OK (7)
WA (12)
SC (9)
SD (3)
TN (11)
TX (38)
UT (6)
WY (3)
WV (5)
196 EV
55 EV
34 EV
47 EV
26 EV
180 EV
Note: The number of electoral votes
shown are for 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections. DC is counted as a state
for purposes of this chart.
The states are listed below in order of Romney’s 2012
percentage—with the most Republican (red) states at the top. All of the
253 General-Election Campaign Events in 2012 occurred in states where
Romney’s percentage of the two-party vote was between 45% and 51%.
The second column shows the total number of general-election campaign events for each state (out of a nationwide total of 253).
The only states that received any campaign events (second column)
and any significant ad money (third column) were the 12 states (shown in
black in the middle of the table) where the Romney received between 45%
and 51% of the vote—that is, within 3 points of his nationwide
percentage of 48%. Only 8 states received more than a handful of
campaign events.
Only 1 of the 13 smallest states (with 3 or 4 electoral votes)
received any of the 253 general-election campaign events, namely the
closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire. All the other
states in this group were ignored. Only 3 of the 25 smallest states
(with 7 or fewer electoral votes) received any of the general-election
campaign events. All the other small states were ignored. The 3 states
that received attention were the closely divided battleground states of
New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.
The fourth column in the table shows donations from each state (scroll the table left to see all the columns).
In 2016, there were 399 general-election campaign events. Almost all
campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where Trump’s support was
between 47% and 55% of the two-party vote. Two-thirds of the events (273
of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).
12 battleground states in 2016 accounting for 94% of the campaign events (375 of 399)
Trump %
Events
State
Trump
Clinton
R-Margin
D-Margin
R-EV
D-EV
Population
55%
21
Iowa
800,983
653,669
147,314
6
3,053,787
54%
48
Ohio
2,841,006
2,394,169
446,837
18
11,568,495
52%
55
North Carolina
2,362,631
2,189,316
173,315
15
9,565,781
52%
10
Arizona
1,252,401
1,161,167
91,234
11
6,412,700
51%
71
Florida
4,617,886
4,504,975
112,911
29
18,900,773
50%
14
Wisconsin
1,405,284
1,382,536
22,748
10
5,698,230
50%
54
Pennsylvania
2,970,733
2,926,441
44,292
20
12,734,905
50%
22
Michigan
2,279,543
2,268,839
10,704
16
9,911,626
49.8%
21
New Hampshire
345,790
348,526
2,736
4
1,321,445
49%
17
Nevada
512,058
539,260
27,202
6
2,709,432
47%
19
Colorado
1,202,484
1,338,870
136,386
9
5,044,930
47%
23
Virginia
1,769,443
1,981,473
212,030
13
8,037,736
51%
375
22,360,242
21,689,241
125
32
94,959,840
Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.
Only 2 of the 13 smallest states (with 3 or 4 electoral votes)
received any of the 399 general-election campaign events. New Hampshire
received 21 because it was a closely divided battleground state. Maine
(which awards electoral votes by congressional district) received 3
campaign events because its 2nd congressional district was closely
divided (and, indeed, Trump carried it). All the other states in this
group were ignored.
Only 9 of the 25 smallest states (with 7 or fewer electoral votes)
received any general-election campaign events. New Hampshire, Iowa, and
Nevada received attention because they were closely divided battleground
states. Maine and Nebraska (which award electoral votes by
congressional district) received some attention since just one of their
congressional districts was closely divided. New Mexico received some
attention (from the Republican campaign only) because former New Mexico
Governor Johnson was running for President and it appeared his strong
home-state support might make the state competitive. Utah received some
attention from Republicans because the McMullin candidacy might have
made the state competitive. Connecticut and Mississippi also received
one campaign event. All the other small states in this group were
ignored.
39 spectator states in 2016 accounting for 6% of the campaign events (24 of 399)
Trump %
Events
State
Trump
Clinton
R-Margin
D-Margin
R-EV
D-EV
Population
76%
0
Wyoming
174,419
55,973
118,446
3
568,300
72%
0
West Virginia
489,371
188,794
300,577
5
1,859,815
70%
0
North Dakota
216,794
93,758
123,036
3
675,905
69%
0
Oklahoma
949,136
420,375
528,761
7
3,764,882
68%
0
Idaho
409,055
189,765
219,290
4
1,573,499
66%
0
South Dakota
227,721
117,458
110,263
3
819,761
66%
0
Kentucky
1,202,971
628,854
574,117
8
4,350,606
64%
0
Alabama
1,318,255
729,547
588,708
9
4,802,982
64%
0
Arkansas
684,872
380,494
304,378
6
2,926,229
64%
0
Tennessee
1,522,925
870,695
652,230
11
6,375,431
64%
2
Nebraska
495,961
284,494
211,467
5
1,831,825
62%
1
Utah
515,231
310,676
204,555
6
2,770,765
61%
0
Kansas
671,018
427,005
244,013
6
2,863,813
61%
0
Montana
279,240
177,709
101,531
3
994,416
60%
0
Louisiana
1,178,638
780,154
398,484
8
4,553,962
60%
2
Indiana
1,557,286
1,033,126
524,160
11
6,501,582
60%
2
Missouri
1,594,511
1,071,068
523,443
10
6,011,478
59%
1
Mississippi
700,714
485,131
215,583
6
2,978,240
58%
0
Alaska
163,387
116,454
46,933
3
721,523
57%
0
South Carolina
1,155,389
855,373
300,016
9
4,645,975
55%
1
Texas
4,685,047
3,877,868
807,179
38
25,268,418
53%
3
Georgia
2,089,104
1,877,963
211,141
16
9,727,566
49%
2
Minnesota
1,323,232
1,367,825
44,593
10
5,314,879
48%
3
Maine
335,593
357,735
22,142
1
3
1,333,074
45%
3
New Mexico
319,667
385,234
65,567
5
2,067,273
44%
0
Delaware
185,127
235,603
50,476
3
900,877
44%
0
Oregon
782,403
1,002,106
219,703
7
3,848,606
43%
1
Connecticut
673,215
897,572
224,357
7
3,581,628
43%
0
New Jersey
1,601,933
2,148,278
546,345
14
8,807,501
42%
0
Rhode Island
180,543
252,525
71,982
4
1,055,247
41%
1
Washington
1,221,747
1,742,718
520,971
12
6,753,369
41%
1
Illinois
2,146,015
3,090,729
944,714
20
12,864,380
38%
0
New York
2,819,557
4,556,142
1,736,585
29
19,421,055
36%
0
Maryland
943,169
1,677,928
734,759
10
5,789,929
35%
0
Massachusetts
1,090,893
1,995,196
904,303
11
6,559,644
35%
0
Vermont
95,369
178,573
83,204
3
630,337
34%
1
California
4,483,814
8,753,792
4,269,978
55
37,341,989
33%
0
Hawaii
128,847
266,891
138,044
4
1,366,862
4%
0
D.C.
12,723
282,830
270,107
3
601,723
48%
24
40,624,892
44,164,411
181
200
214,825,346
Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.
Local Leagues don’t usually individually endorse state issues, because of our tradition of “speaking with one voice.” Under that tradition, local Leagues have a choice of either supporting state League advocacy or staying silent. (Likewise, the state League does not intervene in local League advocacy unless it conflicts with state or national Positions.)
In this case,the LWVOR has requested local Leagues to endorse the PNP campaign.
According to this movement:
The process for drawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has, for too long, been controlled by politicians. Letting politicians manipulate voting maps is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Politicians in power shouldn’t draw voting maps that benefit themselves and their party. But that’s exactly how they do it now.
People Not Politicians is proposing a ballot measure to reform that process and create a fairer, more transparent system. At its simplest, this initiative would create an independent citizen redistricting commission comprised of Oregonians.
We believe Oregon voters should choose their politicians—politicians should not choose their voters.
Our diverse coalition has come together from all party affiliations, income levels, backgrounds, identities, and all corners of Oregon. This coalition will rally for equal, fair and transparent representation at the state and congressional level. We represent hundreds of thousands of Oregonians who believe we deserve the best possible representative government. We believe this is produced through a fair, unbiased and transparent process—and we’re working hard to make that happen.
Here is a GRAPHIC VIEW of the reapportionment process.
On Saturday December 14, over a dozen members and friends of LWV Klamath County gathered at the home of Diane Shockey (at right in the apron) at Running Y for a festive holiday potluck luncheon. We enjoyed snacks, main dishes and desserts, all delicious, and shared news and stories.
The weather outside may have been cold, but everyone was warm and happy indoors.
Everyone enjoyed the fun gift exchange and the LWV KC made over $200 during this fundraiser.
Diane’s home was a lovely backdrop for our gathering, and it provided a good way for members and family to reinforce our group spirit as we move forward in 2020 with many plans to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment and the women’s right to vote.
The LWV Klamath County will hold a special event on Sunday February 9, 2020 at 2 PM at the historic Ross Ragland Theater in downtown Klamath Falls, to further commemorate the 100th anniversary of the LWV and the women’s right to vote. The program will include:
two short films detailing the fight of women to gain the vote:
– The Suffragists, Oregon Public Broadcasting, Oregon Experience, Season 7, Episode 702 AND Suppressed; The Fight to Vote, Brave New Films
a short skit presented by the Linkville Players in period costume to highlight these struggles
short speeches by several prominent women from Klamath Falls including Mayor Carol Westfall
punch and cake served by local high school students
an information table on voter registration and LWV membership
The event is free to the public with a suggested donation of $10/ticket. Ticket donations can be made at the door to LWV members. Local high school students will also be invited to attend for free.
Next Statewide Election May 19, 2020 Primary Election
“Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” –Franklin Roosevelt
In 2020 there will be two major elections at the national level: the primary, and the General Election. One of the key platforms of the League of Women Voters is voting: access to the ballot, fair and transparent elections, voter participation at the highest level.
Voting Rights are important in every election, especially a presidential election. The LWV doesn’t endorse any candidate or political party. Instead, the LWV seeks to promote voting as a civil, political, and democratic right for everyone.
As the LWV states, “Voting is a fundamental right and all eligible voters should have the equal opportunity to exercise that right. We are dedicated to ensuring that our elections remain free, fair and accessible.”
The deadline to register is 21 days before Election Day.
To register to vote in Oregon, you must be a U.S. citizen, an Oregon resident and at least 16 years old. Online registration requires a current Oregon drivers license or state ID card.
Oregon has the most convenient voting system in the country. Since adopting
vote-by-mail, Oregon consistently ranks as a
national leader
in voter turnout.
Registered voters receive a ballot two to three weeks before an election, giving time to research issues or candidates.
Voters also receive an official ballot to complete and insert into the security envelope which is placed in the ballot return envelope and signed by the voter. The ballot return envelope can be stamped and mailed or dropped off at any official drop box across the state. If a voter casts their ballot after the Wednesday before an election, the ballot should be left at a drop box site to ensure it’s counted.
Ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day.
You should update your registration if you move, change your name or mailing address, or want to select or change a political party.
You can update your voter registration information, until 8 p.m. on Election Day and still cast a ballot. However, if your registration is updated close to an election, your ballot might have to be issued at the county elections office.
Students attending an out-of-state college or voters traveling during an election can still receive a ballot.
Protecting the Integrity of Elections
Oregon has a proud tradition of open, accessible
and fair elections. Voter fraud is rare but taken seriously.
If you believe someone has violated Oregon elections law, contact the Elections Division. Every complaint will be investigated, and violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Oregon supports unparalleled transparency. Contact
your
county elections office to observe the election
process.
The LWV Klamath County, in honor of the 100th anniversary of the LWV and the Women’s vote, has been busy creating a commemorative cookbook! In fact, we’ve collected over a hundred recipes from our members, friends, family, and community members. In addition, we’ve added interesting pages on the history of the LWV, including here in Klamath County. We have all the right sections for our favorite recipes, from soups to desserts.
And you can PRE-ORDER it for $20 here! Send us a check or contact Leslie Lowefor more information. The cookbook, “The Great Fight for the Women’s Right to Vote”, will be spiral-bound, soft cover, and over a hundred pages. You can pick it up after January 31, 2020 at locations to be determined. It will also be available at other upcoming events that will celebrate our 100th Anniversary. Definitely a unique archive of the LWV of Klamath County and our 100th anniversary.
On January 11, 2020, at 10 AM, at the main Klamath County Library in downtown Klamath Falls, the Rationalists Discussion Group, a monthly gathering of individuals who meet to discuss a wide range of intellectual topics, will discuss the topic of Women’s Rights: Where are we now? This group is not a debate society, nor an educational event, but rather a forum for anyone to come and listen and thoughtfully discuss the announced topic. The group is provided links to thoughtful articles on the general topic, and then holds a round-robin guided discussion. They don’t attempt to reach conclusions or induce calls to action. Rather, it is a chance to consider a topic in some depth with others, to enhance one’s own thinking on the matter.
For January, the following articles will be offered for consideration. Each one addresses a different facet of women’s rights and issues, from voting to sexuality.
Suffragettes and slaves: The women’s suffrage movement was saturated with metaphors of ‘shackles’, ‘bonds’ and ‘slavery’. Was it justifiable?
I’m not a feminist but…These American teens look up to their strong mothers and believe in equal rights. So why won’t they use the F-word?
We the people – not politicians – should draw voting maps
The League of Women Voters of Oregon believes in
putting our best democracy foot forward. We know that we deserve the
best possible government and we invest the energy to achieve it. Oregon
led the fight for direct election of Senators to Congress, pioneered
vote-by-mail and has one of the nation’s most engaged citizenry. Now we
are reforming Oregon’s redistricting process.
The League has joined the People Not Politicians campaign, a diverse coalition made up of all party affiliations, income levels, backgrounds, identities, and all corners of Oregon, to rally for equal, fair and transparent representation at the state and congressional level.
Oregon voters should be choosing their representatives- representatives should not get to choose their voters.
The League supports redistricting reform
that would make our system less susceptible to abuse and
unrepresentative distortions. With an independent redistricting
commission, we would take the process of redistricting out of the hands
of partisan politicians and back into the hands of voters. To defend the
principles of good government against potential gerrymandering, our
proposal combines a multipartisan independent commission with strong
criteria and substantial public input. As we approach the 2020 census
and the potential of adding a sixth congressional district to Oregon, we
need to make sure district boundaries are fair. Biased political goals
can manipulate this process and affect election outcomes at state and
national levels.
Dust off those old family recipes.
The League of Women’s Voters of Klamath County is gearing up to
celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which granted
women the right to vote in 1920. One way they’re celebrating the
anniversary is with the publishing of a cookbook containing recipes
submitted by locals either with a family tie or worthy of passing down
to future generations.
The deadline to submit the recipes is Nov. 25, and the cookbook will go on sale Feb. 1, 2020 for $20. The book will be called “The Great Fight to Win the Vote.” Find the order form HERE.
“Cooking was a
traditionally female domain. We’re talking about women’s history and one
part of women’s history was cooking. It was always a way to share among
family, friends and communities and I think just remembering good
cooking, interesting recipes, old recipes, things that women shared,
again, I know that’s maybe not the way we look at it anymore but it
certainly was for a very long time,” said Emily Strauss, board member of
the LWVKC. “It was a way of women working together.”
“It was a way of meeting with other women,” said Sue Fortune, president of LWVKC.
The
organization is aiming for 100 recipes and had 82 as of Wednesday, said
Leslie Lowe, LWVKC treasurer. They can accept as many as 150.
People wanting to submit recipes can email them to lenny5155@aol.com, along with a couple of sentences about why the recipe is significant to them.
The
cookbook will also feature passages about the history of women’s right
to vote and photos from the time. Funds raised from the cookbook sales
will go toward other 100th anniversary events.
Although
the league has the word “Women” in its name, Lowe said they’re not
limiting recipes or involvement in their events to only women. Men are
also welcome to participate in the events and in the League of Women
Voters, as Lowe said the organization has expanded to include all voters
and voter education in general. Lowe said they already have a few
recipes submitted from men in the community, including one from Klamath
County Commissioner Derrick DeGroot. The recipe is one of his Oma’s —
which is Dutch for grandmother — for Loempia, a kind of deep-fried
spring roll which he said is a traditional dish from the Netherlands,
introduced by Indonesian immigrants.
“The League of Women Voters started just for women, but it has become the League of All Voters,” Lowe said.
According
to the group’s website, “LWVKC joins more than 700 other local and
state chapters to celebrate these historic milestones.”
For more information on the League of Women Voters visit lwvklamath.org. Those looking to buy a cookbook can call Lowe or email her at inharmony46@charter.net.
The
League of Women Voters is celebrating its 100th anniversary as a
national organization in February of 2020 and in August will celebrate
the anniversary of the 19th Amendment.
