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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court rejects fringe elections theory [View all]LetMyPeopleVote
(181,303 posts)32. The 'Independent State Legislature Theory' Is Dead
This makes me smile
Link to tweet
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/independent-state-legislature-theory-dead
Sanity prevailed today at the U.S. Supreme Court. In Moore v. Harper, six justices issued a near total rejection of the independent state legislature theory a bogus and ahistorical reading of the Constitution that would have stripped important checks and balances out of federal election administration and opened the door wide to extreme partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression.,,,,
Members of the North Carolina legislature appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. They did not contest the state courts conclusion that the map was gerrymandered. Rather, they argued that the state court had no authority to review the legislatures actions that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures near absolute authority over federal election administration and that neither governors, state judges, nor state constitutions can review the legislatures actions. In other words, when it comes to federal election administration, there are no checks and balances at the state level.
This was as absurd as it sounds. It lacked any grounding in logic, precedent, structure, or history. For more than 200 years, no one ever read the Elections Clause this way. Indeed, from the very beginning of the republic, governors, state courts, and state constitutions participated in federal election administration. The historical case for the theory is so weak that proponents cited a draft of the Constitution that turned out to be a 19th-century fraud.
The independent state legislature theory would have utterly upended our system of elections. According to Brennan Center research which was submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration in the case adopting the theory would have undermined hundreds of state constitutional provisions, hundreds of state court decisions, and more than 650 delegations of authority by state legislatures to other state officials to administer federal elections.
Today, the justices killed off the independent state legislature theory. The Court reviewed the lengthy history of judicial review of election administration at the state level. It recognized that around the time of the founding, some states explicitly granted veto power over the redrawn maps to state governors. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review, concluded Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority.
Members of the North Carolina legislature appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. They did not contest the state courts conclusion that the map was gerrymandered. Rather, they argued that the state court had no authority to review the legislatures actions that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures near absolute authority over federal election administration and that neither governors, state judges, nor state constitutions can review the legislatures actions. In other words, when it comes to federal election administration, there are no checks and balances at the state level.
This was as absurd as it sounds. It lacked any grounding in logic, precedent, structure, or history. For more than 200 years, no one ever read the Elections Clause this way. Indeed, from the very beginning of the republic, governors, state courts, and state constitutions participated in federal election administration. The historical case for the theory is so weak that proponents cited a draft of the Constitution that turned out to be a 19th-century fraud.
The independent state legislature theory would have utterly upended our system of elections. According to Brennan Center research which was submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration in the case adopting the theory would have undermined hundreds of state constitutional provisions, hundreds of state court decisions, and more than 650 delegations of authority by state legislatures to other state officials to administer federal elections.
Today, the justices killed off the independent state legislature theory. The Court reviewed the lengthy history of judicial review of election administration at the state level. It recognized that around the time of the founding, some states explicitly granted veto power over the redrawn maps to state governors. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review, concluded Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Marbury v. Madison saved the right of state courts to review state election statutes.
Ocelot II
Jun 2023
#1
If you have a better idea for determining whether a law is constitutional, I'd like to hear it, but
Ocelot II
Jun 2023
#33
Alito, Thomas of course -shitweasels are gonna shitweasel. Fuck Gorsuch too. Totally.
Comfortably_Numb
Jun 2023
#2
Or.... If we give states the rights then SCOTUS loses some of their power to rule the masses?
LakeArenal
Jun 2023
#7
Lately, it seems, that the supreme court giveth, and the supreme court taketh away.
BComplex
Jun 2023
#11
As judgment states, no way to get around the precedent, courts CAN review any legislative leap
Alexander Of Assyria
Jun 2023
#12
The Moore v. Harper decision effectively eliminates the John Eastman theory of presidential electors
LetMyPeopleVote
Jun 2023
#13
It should have been unanimous. The fact that 3 dissented is terrifying to me.
Oopsie Daisy
Jun 2023
#15
Your parenthetical question holds merit. Plus, the "try again later" is a dangerous message.
Oopsie Daisy
Jun 2023
#25
Today's ruling is arguably also arguably a blow to John Eastman in the fight over his law license.
LetMyPeopleVote
Jun 2023
#37