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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Marc Elias' take on Moore Vs Harper arguments today . . .
Headed Toward a Middle Ground? Today’s Argument in Moore v. Harperhttps://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/headed-toward-a-middle-ground-todays-argument-in-moore-v-harper/
. . .
If the Court’s ultimate opinion follows the trajectory of the argument, I would expect future voting cases to face additional steps in the legal process but little more. State court election law decisions would be subject to an additional question: Did the opinion fairly reflect state law and the state constitution? While this would create new vehicles to attack pro-democracy court decisions, in practice it would more likely lead to longer, more carefully written state court decisions rather than change the outcome of many cases.
Today’s argument will likely assuage many, but not all, of the concerns raised by supporters of voting rights and fair redistricting. There seems little chance that the Court will deny state courts their traditional role of interpreting and applying their state constitutions to state laws governing elections. For voting rights advocates, the devil will be in the details of any opinion, but it feels like we dodged a bullet.
Proponents of the ISL theory will likely be disappointed by today’s argument. The Court greeted the arguments from the Moore lawyer coldly from the start and the Court seemed to coalesce around a middle ground approach petitioners rejected at the beginning of the day. I suspect some will privately second guess the litigation strategy here and the decision to make this case the vehicle to argue a broad ISL theory.
No matter what the outcome is, we should expect this case to be among the most important and last cases decided by the Court. As a result, I would not expect a decision before late June.
If the Court’s ultimate opinion follows the trajectory of the argument, I would expect future voting cases to face additional steps in the legal process but little more. State court election law decisions would be subject to an additional question: Did the opinion fairly reflect state law and the state constitution? While this would create new vehicles to attack pro-democracy court decisions, in practice it would more likely lead to longer, more carefully written state court decisions rather than change the outcome of many cases.
Today’s argument will likely assuage many, but not all, of the concerns raised by supporters of voting rights and fair redistricting. There seems little chance that the Court will deny state courts their traditional role of interpreting and applying their state constitutions to state laws governing elections. For voting rights advocates, the devil will be in the details of any opinion, but it feels like we dodged a bullet.
Proponents of the ISL theory will likely be disappointed by today’s argument. The Court greeted the arguments from the Moore lawyer coldly from the start and the Court seemed to coalesce around a middle ground approach petitioners rejected at the beginning of the day. I suspect some will privately second guess the litigation strategy here and the decision to make this case the vehicle to argue a broad ISL theory.
No matter what the outcome is, we should expect this case to be among the most important and last cases decided by the Court. As a result, I would not expect a decision before late June.
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
before late June.."
That's a long time to be worried sick and always on the back burner.
🤞🤷♂️🤞💕 TY! 
