The case has the potential to affect many aspects of the 2024 election, including giving judges the power to influence the presidential race whenever state courts interpret their constitutions to demand changes to state electoral laws. The case concerns a ballot paper drawn up by the North Carolina legislature that was rejected as a party operator by the State Supreme Court. Republicans seeking to restore the legislative charter have argued that the state court was powerless to act in accordance with the so-called doctrine of the independent legislature. The doctrine is based on reading two similar provisions of the US Constitution. The North Carolina case, the election clause, says: “The timing, locations and manner of elections for senators and representatives will be determined in each state by its legislature.” This means, North Carolina Republicans have argued, that the state legislature has sole responsibility between state institutions for delineating congressional districts and that state courts have no role to play. The North Carolina Supreme Court has rejected the argument that it had no right to reconsider the actions of the state legislature, saying it would be “disgusting to state sovereignty, the power of state constitutions and the independence of state courts and they produced irrational and dangerous consequences. “ At a previous hearing in March, when the plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought emergency assistance, three members of the U.S. Supreme Court said they would have accepted the request. “This case presents an extremely important and recurring issue of constitutional law, namely the extent to which a state court has the power to reject rules adopted by the state legislature for use in holding federal elections,” wrote Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. Judges Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch. But he said the court should consider it in order, he wrote, outside the context of the upcoming elections. He wrote that the court should approve a petition requesting a review on the merits “in an appropriate case – either in this case from North Carolina or in a similar case from another state. The court has now accepted the petition in the North Carolina case, Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271, and will hear the arguments in his next term, which begins in October. Some precedents of the US Supreme Court tend to undermine the doctrine of an independent legislature. When the court closed the doors of federal courts to partisan litigation claims in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019, Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing about the five most conservative members of the court, said state courts could continue adjudicate such cases – including the redistributive framework of Congress. Lawyers for the North Carolina Supreme Court ruling in the new case said it was a bad way of resolving the scope of the independent legislature, as the legislature itself had empowered state courts to review reconsideration legislation. .
title: “The Supreme Court Will Hear A Case Regarding The Power Of State Legislatures Over Elections " ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-11” author: “Tracy Bronn”
The case has the potential to affect many aspects of the 2024 election, including giving judges the power to influence the presidential race whenever state courts interpret their constitutions to demand changes to state electoral laws. In handling the case, the court could overturn almost every aspect of the US electoral process, allowing state legislatures to set new rules, regulations and constituencies in federal elections with minimal anti-oversight controls and possibly create a chaotic system. with different rules and voting eligibility for presidential elections. “The decision of the Supreme Court will be extremely important for the presidential election, the congressional election and the congressional district,” said J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge. “And therefore, for American democracy.” The protections against partisan aggression introduced through state courts could virtually disappear. The possibility of challenging new electoral laws at the state level could be reduced. And the theory behind the case could open the door to states legislatures sending their own voter lists. Republicans currently have complete control over 30 state legislatures in the country, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and were the force behind a wave of new restrictions on voting last year. And Republican lawmakers in key battlefield states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Texas have used their control of redistribution to effectively lock down power for a decade. Democrats, in turn, control just 17 state legislatures. The case concerns a ballot paper drawn up by the North Carolina legislature that was rejected as a party operator by the State Supreme Court. Republicans seeking to restore the legislative charter have argued that the state court was powerless to act in accordance with the so-called doctrine of the independent legislature. The doctrine is based on reading two similar provisions of the US Constitution. The North Carolina case, the election clause, says: “The timing, locations and manner of elections for senators and representatives will be determined in each state by its legislature.” This means, North Carolina Republicans have argued, that the state legislature has sole responsibility between state institutions for delineating congressional districts and that state courts have no role to play. The North Carolina Supreme Court has rejected the argument that it had no right to reconsider the actions of the state legislature, saying it would be “disgusting to state sovereignty, the power of state constitutions and the independence of state courts and they produced irrational and dangerous consequences. “ At a previous hearing in March, when the plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought emergency assistance, three members of the U.S. Supreme Court said they would have accepted the request. “This case presents an extremely important and recurring issue of constitutional law, namely the extent to which a state court has the power to reject rules adopted by the state legislature for use in holding federal elections,” wrote Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. Judges Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed that the question was important. “The issue is almost certain to continue to exist until the court finally resolves it,” he wrote. But the court should consider it in order, he wrote, outside the context of the upcoming elections. He wrote that the court should approve a petition requesting a review on the merits “in an appropriate case – either in this case from North Carolina or in a similar case from another state. The court has now accepted the petition in the North Carolina case, Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271, and will hear the arguments in his next term, which begins in October. Some precedents of the US Supreme Court tend to undermine the doctrine of an independent legislature. When the court closed the doors of federal courts to partisan litigation claims in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019, Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing about the five most conservative members of the court, said state courts could continue adjudicate such cases – including the redistributive framework of Congress. Lawyers for the North Carolina Supreme Court ruling in the new case said it was a bad way of resolving the scope of the independent legislature, as the legislature itself had empowered state courts to review reconsideration legislation. . During the previous redistribution cycle, state courts in North Carolina, Ohio and New York rejected the redesigned maps as party operators. In 2018, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court rejected congressional districts drawn by Republicans. However, if the Supreme Court adopts the doctrine, “it will completely eliminate the possibility of redistributing the redistribution maps on the grounds that it is a kind of party operator,” said David Rivkin, a federal constitutional expert who served in Reagan. and George HW Bush and has advocated the doctrine of an independent state legislature. It would also leave a few remaining avenues through the courts to challenge congressional maps as unconstitutional. A party surgeon would be essentially legal and a racist operator would be the only way to file a dispute. Adoption of the doctrine could also result in the elimination of independent redistributive committees set up by voters through a voting initiative, such as in Michigan and Arizona, and limit their scope to state legislatures only. But a decision that favors the doctrine of an independent legislature has implications that could extend far beyond the charters of Congress. Such a ruling, legal experts say, could limit a state court’s ability to repeal any new federal election laws and could limit its ability to make changes on election day, such as extending hours. elections in a location that opened late due to bad weather or technical difficulties. “I can not overestimate how consequential, how radical and consequential this could be,” said Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Virtually no one but Congress would be allowed to curb some of the abuses of state legislatures.” The decision to adjudicate the case comes as Republican-led state legislatures across the country sought to seize more power in the administration of the election from non-partisan election officials and foreign ministers. In Georgia, for example, a law passed last year removed the foreign minister from important powers, including chairing the State Electoral Council. Such efforts to gain more partisan control over the electoral administration have raised concerns among some voting rights groups that state legislatures are moving to take more extreme measures in bad elections, similar to plans drawn up by the former legal team. President Donald J. Trump in the days of his presidency. “The nightmare scenario,” Brennan Center wrote in June, presidential elections and instead choose its own list of voters “. Legal experts note that there are federal constitutional controls that would prevent a legislature from simply declaring after the election that it will ignore the popular vote and send an alternative list of voters. But if the legislature passes a law before the election, for example, which sets out the parameters by which a legislature could take over the election and send its voter list, this could be complied with according to the dogma of the independent legislature. “If this theory is accepted, then the red state legislatures will be smart and will start implementing these things before 2024,” said Vikram D. Amar, dean of the University of Illinois Law College. . “So there are rules to do what they want.”
