Supreme Court agrees to hear high-stakes election law clash

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3542404-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-high-stakes-election-law-clash/

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to review an effort by Republican lawmakers in North Carolina to advance a sweeping legal theory that, if successful, could hand state legislatures broad new powers over how voting maps are drawn and federal elections conducted.

Viewed narrowly, the case is an appeal from a state court’s ruling that a new Republican-drawn North Carolina voting map amounted to an illegal partisan gerrymander.

But the breadth of the legal argument put forth by the Republican challengers raises the stakes of the case considerably, legal experts say.

“An extreme version of the theory would shut down state courts’ ability to rein in partisan gerrymandering and protect voters’ rights in federal elections,” said Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law.

*snip*

[CrispyQ]

1. "We'll just vote him out in four years."

That's what a friend said when Trump won in 2016, while mocking my fear of what damage he would do.

[roamer65]

2. Secession is looking better and better every day.