Supreme Court May Hear '800-Pound Gorilla' of Election Law Cases

[In It to Win It]

NY Times

No Paywall

WASHINGTON — In October 2020, with the presidential election looming, four conservative justices issued opinions that seemed prepared to endorse a legal theory that would radically reshape how federal elections are conducted. The theory would give state legislatures independent power, not subject to review by state courts, to set election rules at odds with state constitutions, and to draw congressional maps warped by partisan gerrymandering.

But the Supreme Court did not resolve the existence or scope of the theory, often called the independent state legislature doctrine, in cases concerning the 2020 election.

The question arose again this March in an emergency application from Republicans in North Carolina who wanted to restore a voting map drawn by the State Legislature and rejected as a partisan gerrymander by the State Supreme Court.

“The question presented here,” the application said, “goes to the very core of this nation’s democratic republic: what entity has the constitutional authority to set the rules of the road for federal elections.”

Three justices said they would have granted the application.

“This case presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law, namely, the extent of a state court’s authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed that the question was important. “The issue is almost certain to keep arising until the court definitively resolves it,” he wrote.

The North Carolina case concerns the Constitution’s Elections Clause. It says: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”

That means, the pending petition argued, that the state legislature has sole responsibility among state institutions for drawing congressional districts and that state courts have no role to play.

[SoonerPride]

1. I think we all know how this will turn out

The party of gerrymandering wins again.

Until Democratically controlled legislatures play an equally hard ball game to our advantage we are screwed.

Our side wants "fairness" and the Republicans want "power."

We are fighting with both arms tied behind our back.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. Sage words my friend (nt)

[Novara]

2. I don't quite understand how state maps end up at the SCOTUS considering the 10th A.

All this bullshit about "states' rights" - so how does the SCOTUS decide on a state's case regarding how their maps are drawn?

I'm not making a judgment about this case but I'm wondering how gerrymander cases don't end at the state level because it's a state's interest.

Any Constitutional scholars out there who can explain it? Does the SCOTUS assume there's an interest to the entire country when a state screws with their maps?

And if so, isn't that the best case of all for making sure all districts are drawn fairly by nonpartisans in every single state every single time?

[In It to Win It]

8. The duty of reapportionment goes to the states. However, the Constitution specifies

"in each State by the Legislature thereof"

I'm not a constitutional scholar but this my understanding. Their entire argument rests on those words, "in each State by the Legislature thereof." Their case is trying to frame an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Their argument is that their maps are not reviewable by state courts or any other entity that is not the state legislature, and that the state legislature has sole responsibility and cannot be "checked" by another branch of government.

That is of national importance because NC is not the only state that is pushing this idea. SCOTUS is not deciding on the map itself directly, but they are making an indirect decision. The GOP is making a constitutional argument. The question is not the maps themselves, but the question is whether the state legislature is the only state institution that can have input on drawing maps without oversight of the state supreme court.

This has implications for governors as well in regard to their veto power over maps. The Court has never agreed with that interpretation before but this is not your grandma's court anymore. If the Court agrees with the argument that only the state legislature can have input on maps, that also means governors can't veto maps. That means if the Court agrees with them, that means we have no recourse against their map insanity in states where the GOP has a majority. The only recourse would be a dysfunctional Congress.

[Novara]

10. Maybe I didn't state my question well

I'm not asking about this case; I'm wondering how the SCOTUS is involved now. Seems to me, all the state's rights bullshit means that it could never be decided by a federal court, that it would stay at the state level.

To me, this drives home the idea that maps are going to be fucked with. The idea that we have to keep fighting this means the process is not neutral and fair. It shouldn't be about who makes the final decision because that process will always be biased. They should be neutral to begin with.

Thanks for responding, BTW.

[In It to Win It]

12. Perhaps I misunderstand the question so my apologies

SCOTUS is might be involved now because Republicans brought the issue to the Court.

They have switched gears. The state court resolved issues of gerrymandering and fairness on the maps. The issue of maps was resolved at the state level. It ended with the state supreme court. The GOP has now switched gears to a new argument, putting fairness or neutrality of maps aside, that the state court has no authority to review the map at all. That's a new question for the Court to answer, if they choose to answer it.

[Novara]

14. no need to apologize

I appreciate the information.

[sanatanadharma]

4. Ignoring the rest of the article like with 2nd A words

Clause 1 Elections Clause

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So here the last clause in a constitutional clause will be ignored.
" ... ; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

[Disaffected]

7. WTF?

Ignoring the last part of the sentence, they (the NY Times) conclude the legislature has "sole" responsibility for making the regulations??

Seems quite bizarre.

[In It to Win It]

9. The NY Times is not taking that position. They are reporting that to be the position of

the Republican legislature in NC. That is a pretty extreme argument and completely outside of mainstream understanding.

[Disaffected]

15. OK, thank you.

[jimfields33]

5. Constitution says state legislature should draw them. That it!

Get New York’s back and any other state that was thrown out by legislators.

[empedocles]

6. This is a broad, and deep, conspiracy against democracy.

Suspect dark monies financing, to these various drives and challenges.

Dark monies, may be reassuring, and threatening republicon office holders everywhere.

'' . . . during the 2012 election cycle, conservative dark money groups that reported expenditures to the FEC outspent liberal ones by about 8-to-1, according to the Center for Responsive Politics . . . "
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/what-is-political-dark-money-and-is-it-bad/''

[It takes a long time to track down the money flows]

[uponit7771]

11. thank you !!! The other scary thing is how aligned these bastards are with Putrid et al

[empedocles]

13. International corruption tools may be readily accessible to 'them and theirs' - they

could be 'helping out' . . . putin.