Court seems unwilling to embrace broad version of "independent state legislature"

[sl8]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/court-seems-unwilling-to-embrace-broad-version-of-independent-state-legislature-theory/

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Court seems unwilling to embrace broad version of “independent state legislature” theory

By Amy Howe
on Dec 7, 2022 at 5:22 pm

The Supreme Court on Wednesday signaled that it may not be ready to adopt a sweeping interpretation of the Constitution, known as the “independent state legislature” theory, that would give state legislatures broad power to regulate federal elections without interference from state courts. Although some justices appeared receptive to that theory during nearly three hours of argument, it was not clear that there was a majority to endorse it, even as other justices focused on a narrower version of the theory that would preserve at least some role for state courts in enforcing state laws or the state constitution.

The dispute before the court in Moore v. Harper arose from a challenge to a new congressional map adopted by North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature in early November 2021. The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the map after finding that it was a partisan gerrymander in violation of the North Carolina constitution. The question for the justices is whether the state court overstepped its authority under the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause, which says the time, place, and manner of congressional elections “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

Representing the Republican legislators, lawyer David Thompson maintained that the elections clause vests a state’s legislature with the power to make rules for federal elections. State courts cannot, he stressed, restrict a legislature’s substantive discretion to do so. Instead, he argued, state courts can only enforce procedural limits on the legislature’s authority.

Members of the court saw two main problems with Thompson’s argument. The first was the Supreme Court’s own precedent. Justice Elena Kagan ticked off a series of Supreme Court cases that, she said, make clear that state courts, applying a state’s constitution, can constrain the legislature’s power over federal elections.

Kagan later observed that Thompson’s argument was “a theory with big consequences” that could eliminate most of the “normal checks and balances” in government “at exactly the time when they are needed most” – such as the redistricting in this case, in which legislators have a strong incentive to create a map that will keep them in power. That’s why, Kagan noted, the Supreme Court has made clear that the legislature is subject to normal constraints even under the elections clause.

[...]

[orthoclad]

1. That's a signal that

they'll adopt a "thin" version of that cockeyed, fraudulent theory.

This is the worst attack on America since WWII. Adopting ANY of it will be disastrous.

[enough]

2. I wouldn't trust any "signals" from this court.

[orthoclad]

3. Yep.

Words are cheap. Actions like Dodd count.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Former AG Holder

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=IupqNfxhDqMoWza1KgOnDg

[Skittles]

5. I'm still going with 8-1 against

(with the 1 being Ginni Thomas's vote)