Three governors who vetoed the NPVIC legislation – Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Linda Lingle of Hawaii and Steve Sisolak of Nevada – opposed the pact on the grounds that it could ask for the allocation of votes from their states to a candidate who could not obtain a majority in their state. (Since then, California and Hawaii have enacted laws that adhere to the pact. Supporters of the compact attack the fact that, under a national voting system, majorities at the state level are irrelevant; in each Land, votes contribute to the federal count that determines the winner. The preferences of each voter are therefore the first, while majorities at the state level are an obsolete intermediate measure.    The compact clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that “no state without the consent of Congress … To make an agreement or a pact with another state.  In a report published in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court`s decision in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) – confirmed to U.S. Steel Corp.
against Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981) – when he stated that the terms “agreement” and “compact” are synonymous and that the explicit agreement of Congress on intergovernmental pacts is not necessary for agreements “that the United States cannot challenge or have an interest in interfering.”  However, the report asserted that the Court required the explicit agreement of Congress for intergovernmental pacts that “aim to create a combination that tends toward the rise of political power in states that may encroach on or may encroach upon the just domination of the United States” – meaning that the vertical balance of power between the federal government and national governments is altered in favour of the country`s government.  The pact would change the way participating states apply Article II, Section 1, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each federal legislature to define a method for nominating its electors to vote in the Electoral College. The Constitution does not impose a specific legislative system for election years and gives national legislators exclusive power to decide how voters in their states should be allocated (although systems contrary to the 14th Amendment, which requires the same protection of the law and prohibits racial discrimination, are prohibited).   Over the years, states have chosen different methods of allocation, with regular changes in the early decades of the country. Today, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) give all their votes to the candidates with the highest number of votes in the country (the “Winner take-all” system). Maine and Nebraska currently award one vote to the winner in each congressional district and their two remaining votes to the national winner.
A 2008 Columbia Law Review article by Columbia Law School student David Gringer suggested that NPVIC could violate Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA).  In 2012, however, he refused the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice, California`s adherence to the NPVIC under Section 5 of the Act, and the October 2019 IRS report found that the U.S. Supreme Court`s decision at Shelby County/Holder (2013), which invalidated Section 4 (b) of the VRA, currently rendered Section 5 unusable.  In response to Gringer`s argument that the NPVIC would violate Section 2 of the VRA, Rob Richie von FairVote stated that the NPVIC “treats all voters equally”, and NPV Inc. stated: “The national referendum bill would clearly be tantamount to the voice of all men for the President of the United States in an election to hold a single position (the presidency). It is entirely consistent with the purpose of the Voting Rights Act.  On the other hand, under the current system, a voter is entitled to only the limited number of presidential voters to which his or her state is entitled.