Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums🚨 A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6
Link to tweet
Moore v. Harper is a grave threat to US democracy, and the fate of that democracy probably comes down to Amy Coney Barrett.
The Supreme Courts announcement on Thursday that it will hear Moore v. Harper, a case that could concentrate an unprecedented amount of power in gerrymandered state legislatures, should alarm anyone who cares about democracy.
The case is perhaps the gravest threat to American democracy since the January 6 attack. It seeks to reinstate gerrymandered congressional maps that were struck down by North Carolinas highest court because they subordinated traditional neutral redistricting criteria in favor of extreme partisan advantage for the Republican Party.
The plaintiffs argue that the state supreme court didnt have the authority to strike down these maps, and rest their claim on legal arguments that would fundamentally alter how congressional and presidential elections are conducted.
Moore involves the independent state legislature doctrine, a theory that the Supreme Court has rejected many times over the course of more than a century but that started to gain steam after Republican appointees gained a supermajority on the Supreme Court at the end of the Trump administration.
Under the strongest form of this doctrine, all state constitutional provisions that constrain state lawmakers ability to skew federal elections would cease to function. State courts would lose their power to strike down anti-democratic state laws, such as a gerrymander that violates the state constitution or a law that tosses out ballots for arbitrary reasons. And state governors, who ordinarily have the power to veto new state election laws, would lose that power.
As Justice Neil Gorsuch described this approach in a 2020 concurring opinion in a case concerning the deadline for casting mail-in ballots in Wisconsin, the Constitution provides that state legislatures not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.
The Supreme Courts announcement on Thursday that it will hear Moore v. Harper, a case that could concentrate an unprecedented amount of power in gerrymandered state legislatures, should alarm anyone who cares about democracy.
The case is perhaps the gravest threat to American democracy since the January 6 attack. It seeks to reinstate gerrymandered congressional maps that were struck down by North Carolinas highest court because they subordinated traditional neutral redistricting criteria in favor of extreme partisan advantage for the Republican Party.
The plaintiffs argue that the state supreme court didnt have the authority to strike down these maps, and rest their claim on legal arguments that would fundamentally alter how congressional and presidential elections are conducted.
Moore involves the independent state legislature doctrine, a theory that the Supreme Court has rejected many times over the course of more than a century but that started to gain steam after Republican appointees gained a supermajority on the Supreme Court at the end of the Trump administration.
Under the strongest form of this doctrine, all state constitutional provisions that constrain state lawmakers ability to skew federal elections would cease to function. State courts would lose their power to strike down anti-democratic state laws, such as a gerrymander that violates the state constitution or a law that tosses out ballots for arbitrary reasons. And state governors, who ordinarily have the power to veto new state election laws, would lose that power.
As Justice Neil Gorsuch described this approach in a 2020 concurring opinion in a case concerning the deadline for casting mail-in ballots in Wisconsin, the Constitution provides that state legislatures not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
9 replies, 2416 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (30)
ReplyReply to this post
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
🚨 A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6 (Original Post)
In It to Win It
Jun 2022
OP
Fine...we'll secure every Dem-led state to be sure qultists NEVER gain power there!
Roland99
Jun 2022
#1
K&R for visibility. If the cons win, Pennsylvania will be permanently red.
bronxiteforever
Jun 2022
#2
One branch of government at the State level has the power to overturn an election.
Baitball Blogger
Jun 2022
#5
Roland99
(53,342 posts)1. Fine...we'll secure every Dem-led state to be sure qultists NEVER gain power there!
Celerity
(42,674 posts)7. That may be very few Blue (ie we control both chambers) states I am afraid.
Post 2023 elections the Rethugs may have as many as 34 states at least 30 at minimum) where they control both chambers (Nebraska is unicameral). We will have at most 18, perhaps only 16.
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)2. K&R for visibility. If the cons win, Pennsylvania will be permanently red.
The State House has been in GOP control for a quarter of a century. The State Senate has been R,with an almost veto proof majority for 14 years.
Remember Pennsylvania has Rep Scott Perry and State Senator Doug Mastriano. I believe both wanted a new slate of Pennsylvania electors in 2020 to bring about the coup. The Con Court knows the value of Pennsylvania and wants to shut out Democratic controlled state Supreme Court.
Remember Pennsylvania has Rep Scott Perry and State Senator Doug Mastriano. I believe both wanted a new slate of Pennsylvania electors in 2020 to bring about the coup. The Con Court knows the value of Pennsylvania and wants to shut out Democratic controlled state Supreme Court.
intrepidity
(7,241 posts)3. I'll tell you why
In its eagerness to hear an independent state legislature doctrine case, in other words, the Supreme Court appears to have taken up a case where there is no legitimate legal conflict. Even if state legislatures have exclusive authority to shape a states election law, the North Carolina state legislature used this authority to explicitly empower state courts to strike down gerrymandered maps.
And yet, its hard to imagine why the Court would agree to hear this case unless it is at least considering rolling back decisions like Davis and Arizona State Legislature.
And yet, its hard to imagine why the Court would agree to hear this case unless it is at least considering rolling back decisions like Davis and Arizona State Legislature.
They want to decide this so that, going forward, state legislative bodies don't make the same mistake of "allowing" the Executive, Judicial--and :gasp: *the people*--to have any role whatsoever in the process. It will be a clarion call to Red states to start rewriting the rules, now.
Those fucking ACTIVIST JUDGES at it again.
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)4. We are fucked if they uphold this doctrine.
Its lights out for any sort of democracy (or constitutional republic as RWers now say) in this country.
Baitball Blogger
(46,576 posts)5. One branch of government at the State level has the power to overturn an election.
What happened to checks and balances? The Supreme Court conservatives are evil people.
In It to Win It
(8,143 posts)6. "Checks and balances" was just advise to them
not binding at all
live love laugh
(13,009 posts)8. That's insane.
Response to In It to Win It (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed