The classic movie, The Wizard of Oz, follows the plight of the orphan Dorothy, who is whisked away from her home in Kansas by a tornado. Dorothy finds herself lost and alone in the strange world of Munchkinland. She desperately wants to return home, but doesn’t know how to get there. Ultimately, a journey to Emerald City shows her that she had the tools to return home at any time; she just didn’t know it. With three clicks of her red ruby slippers, Dorothy returns home to her Aunt Em and Uncle Henry.

Similarly, some Americans may feel at a loss as they watch a California-based attempt to perform an end-run around the constitutional amendment process. We may wonder how we can stop a minority of states from eventually imposing their wishes on the rest of the nation. But it turns out that the Constitution provides a defense against this behavior. We had the weapon in our arsenal the whole time. We just failed to recognize it for what it was.

Electoral College opponents have long wished for a constitutional amendment to change America’s unique presidential election system. But the amendment process ultimately requires the consent of three-quarters of the states. The Founders deliberately created such a challenging process, knowing that supermajority requirements would provide an especially important protection for freedom. Electoral College opponents, however, apparently find these protections tedious and unnecessary. Several years ago, they conjured up a way to skirt them. The result is National Popular Vote Inc.

NPV has proposed legislation that would commit participating states to an interstate compact. Each state would agree to allocate its entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact would go into effect when states representing 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to it. The compact has already been approved by Hawaii (4 electoral votes), Illinois (21 electoral votes), Maryland (10 electoral votes), and New Jersey (15 electoral votes).

Indeed, it’s the same weapon that NPV proponents seek to use against us: Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which requires each state legislature to determine the best method of elector selection for its state.

To date, most legislatures have opted for a winner-take-all allocation of electors within their own borders. For example, John McCain received Texas’s entire slate of 34 electors because he won the popular vote within our state. Such a plan allows Texans to be heard, as Texans, in the national presidential election. But NPV seeks to turn this constitutional power on its head, encouraging legislators to waive their states’ interests and to instead allocate their electors to a national popular vote total. If Texas had been committed to a plan such as NPV last year, its 34 electoral votes would have been awarded to Barack Obama, despite the fact that most Texans preferred McCain. If Obama had received virtually all of his votes from large urban areas such as Los Angeles or New York, Texas still would have been required to cast its votes against the preferences of Texas voters.

The NPV plan would use the Article II requirements in ways that the Founders never envisioned. But Belenky reminds us that the power to determine a method of elector allocation can be used defensively, as well as offensively.

His self-defense option is easiest to describe by way of example. If Texas legislators were to enact this legislative option, the Texas ballot would be changed, effective as of the day that NPV goes into effect. Texans would no longer cast one vote for a presidential candidate, knowing that the vote will be translated into a vote for 34 electors (Republican, Democratic or third-party). Instead, Texans would vote for the electors themselves. Each Texan could vote for up to 34 electors. The 34 candidates with the most votes would represent Texas in the Electoral College vote.

With such a law in place, a popular vote total for Texas is impossible to certify. If a voter casts ballots for 15 Republican electors, 15 Democratic electors, and 4 third-party electors, who can say which presidential candidate that person "meant" to vote for? It’s simple. You can’t. Thus, the states participating in NPV won’t know who won the "most" votes nationwide, and they won’t be able to allocate their electors according to some unknowable national popular vote total. The NPV plan would fail on its face.

Defenders of the Constitution should take action now. NPV is seeking to make an important decision regarding the American presidential election process behind closed doors in only a handful of states. This is wrong. The constitutional amendment process was designed to generate a national discussion on issues as critical as this one. States such as Texas should rise up and defend their right to participate in such a discussion.