Virginia Law Joining National Popular Vote Compact Draws GOP ‘Unconstitutional’ Criticism

Virginia recently enacted a law joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a multistate agreement that would have participating states allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote once compact members together control at least 270 electoral votes. With Virginia’s addition the compact’s signatories now total 222 electoral votes—48 short of the 270 threshold—so state officials and observers note that Virginia will still award electors under its own results until enough other states join to trigger the arrangement. Supporters say the change is meant to ensure the presidency aligns with the national popular vote; critics, led by state Republican officials and amplified on conservative outlets, call the move unconstitutional and argue it could nullify Virginians’ votes by diverting the state’s electors to the national winner.

The debate over Virginia’s law comes amid broader public attitudes and structural questions about presidential elections. A 2024 Pew poll found 63% of U.S. adults favor electing the president by nationwide popular vote, a majority that helps explain the compact’s popular backing; proponents also argue a national popular vote would make more states competitive and could raise turnout, since turnout in battleground states has been 7–11% higher than in non-battleground states under the current Electoral College-driven system. Progressive groups praised Virginia’s move as “an important step forward for representative democracy,” while legal scholars and critics on social platforms flagged possible constitutional challenges under the Compact Clause and the Presidential Electors Clause and questioned how quickly the compact could realistically take effect.

Public reaction has been sharply divided and heavily shaped by partisan framing. Republican posts on X accused Representative Abigail Spanberger—whom some critics singled out on social media—of endorsing a measure they call an “assault on democracy,” while other voices, including legal academics, noted the compact now stands at 222 electoral votes and debated whether additional states can join in time for 2028. Mainstream coverage has shifted from explanatory reporting about the compact’s goal and public opinion (as seen in outlets emphasizing the national-popular-vote rationale) to more combative accounts that foreground partisan criticism and prospective court fights; conservative outlets and social media amplified the “unconstitutional” narrative, while progressive outlets and advocacy groups emphasized democratic reform and public support.