9th Amendment Project: Official Advocacy Statement
Document ID: 9AP-POLICY-2026-008
Subject: Opposition to Virginia HB 965 (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact)
Jurisdiction: Individual Suffrage, State Sovereignty, and the Compact Clause
The 9th Amendment Project (9AP) has formally classified Virginia House Bill 965 (HB 965) as a structural violation of the constitutional order. Signed by Governor Abigail Spanberger on April 13, 2026, this legislation enters Virginia into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). By pledging Virginia’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the will of Virginia’s own citizens, this act effects a jurisdictional liquidation of the Commonwealth’s sovereign voice.
The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mandates that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Central to these retained rights is the individual’s right to have their vote counted within the distinct political community (the State) established by Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment.
- Federal Precedent (Vote Dilution): In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” HB 965 constitutes a systemic dilution of Virginia’s electorate into a national mass, rendering the state-level result legally irrelevant.
- The Compact Clause Violation: Under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, states are prohibited from entering into any “Agreement or Compact with another State” without the consent of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court established in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) and U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) that Congressional consent is required for any compact that tends to increase political power in the States while encroaching upon federal supremacy or the rights of non-compacting states.
- Virginia Constitutional Conflict: Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Virginia declares that “all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.” By outsourcing the selection of electors to the populations of other states, HB 965 violates the mandate that Virginia’s magistrates are “amenable” to the people of the Commonwealth, not the national collective.
The 9AP Analysis: Legal and Judicial Overreach
While proponents argue that Article II, Section 1 gives states “plenary power” to appoint electors (citing McPherson v. Blacker), the 9AP asserts that this power is not a license to dismantle the federalist structure itself.
- Distinction of Jurisdiction: As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted in Berg v. Obama (2008), the presidential election is a state-by-state contest. HB 965 attempts to synthesize these distinct jurisdictions into a single national unit without a constitutional amendment.
- Disparagement of the Minority: The Virginia Supreme Court has historically upheld the principle that the elective franchise is a fundamental right. In Wilkins v. West (2002), the court reaffirmed that any state action that restricts or diminishes the weight of that franchise must be strictly scrutinized. HB 965 fails this scrutiny by ensuring that a majority of Virginians could vote for Candidate A, yet have their state’s power handed to Candidate B.
The 9AP Mandate: A Call to Action
The 9th Amendment Project stands in defense of the Sovereign Commonwealth. The right of the people of Virginia to act as a distinct political body is a right retained by them under the 9th and 10th Amendments. The state government possesses no authority to contract away the fundamental weight of the citizen’s vote to a national aggregate.
We demand the immediate repeal of HB 965. We call on all defenders of the Republic to challenge this unconstitutional compact in the U.S. District Courts to prevent the irrevocable disparagement of the 12th Amendment framework.
“A vote that is weighed only as part of a national aggregate is a vote that has been disparaged. State sovereignty is a right we retained, and it is a right we will defend.” — 9th Amendment Project Charter
Leave a Reply