Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Does The Constitution Mean by a State Legislature
Law & Liberty ^ | 4/19/2021 | Mike Rappaport

Posted on 04/19/2021 6:21:06 AM PDT by Loud Mime

The Constitution’s multiple references to “state legislatures” raise difficult and significant issues. The main question is whether we can give a consistent answer to the meaning of this term across a large number of different constitutional clauses that both fits the constitutional text and gives a plausible answer.

This is important for several reasons. First, it provides an originalist answer to a difficult interpretive question—something important in its own right that also demonstrates the power of originalism as an interpretive method. But it is also important because it addresses two of the most significant questions involving elections in recent years—questions such as (1) whether courts can use state constitutional provisions to displace laws passed by state legislatures that regulate the presidential election and (2) whether state referenda can be used to bypass state legislative redistricting decisions by assigning redistricting decisions to independent commissions.

The Constitution’s frequent use of “state legislatures” requires two main questions to be answered. One question involves whether an entity other than the state legislature can take an action when the Constitution assigns that action to the state legislature. For example, the Constitution provides that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” the members of the Electoral College. Does that provision allow the state Constitution to override the state legislature’s decision as to the manner of appointing the electors? And if it does, can the courts enforce that constitutional provision to the detriment of the state legislature? In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court used the state constitution to override the election law that the state legislature had enacted. While the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the challenges to that decision, the question remains whether that action was constitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

A similar issue that arises here occurs when the state, either through its constitution or some other means, assigns a decision of the state legislature to another entity. For example, the Constitution provides that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Does this provision allow the state constitution or the voters through a referendum to assign redistricting decisions to an independent commission rather than the state legislature? Some states have done exactly that and the Supreme Court in 2015 approved of the action in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n. My short answer to these questions is that the United States Constitution prevents the state constitution or the voters from assigning any of these decisions to anyone other than the state legislature.

The second question raised by the state legislature provisions involves which entity makes a decision when the state legislature is assigned that task. Is the decision to be made by the state legislature proper—that is, both legislative houses but with no opportunity for the governor to veto it? Or is it to be made by the state legislature with opportunity for a gubernatorial veto? Sometimes the practice is for one (for example, state legislative ratification of constitutional amendments), at other times the practice is for the other (state legislative determination of the times, places and manner of holding congressional elections). Is the practice correct, and if so, why? I argue that the Constitution draws a distinction between tasks for the state legislature that involve enacting laws and tasks that do not.

State Legislatures or Constitutions and Popular Votes

Let me start out with the first question. Can the state constitution make a decision instead of the state legislature? The short answer is no. The U.S. Constitution means what it says. The fact that the state legislature is assigned the decision means the state constitution (especially if enacted in part by an entity other than the state legislature) cannot override the state legislature. The U.S. Constitution takes priority over the state constitution. This indicates that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally prior to the 2020 presidential election when it relied upon the state constitution to override the state statute that had required a mail in ballot to be received by 8:00 PM on election night and instead held that the ballot could be received up to three days after the election.

Similarly, if the people of the state, through a popular vote allowed by the state constitution, assign the decision on how to hold congressional elections to a redistricting commission, that too is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n (2015) sought to defend the constitutionality of these commissions by arguing that the people of the state are exercising legislative power and therefore constitute a state legislature. But the term “state legislature” does not refer to anyone or anything that exercises legislative power. Rather, it refers to a specific type of institution and therefore the people of the state in a popular vote are not a state legislature. While the Supreme Court’s approval allows states to combat gerrymandering through popular referenda and redistricting commissions, it does so in an unconstitutional manner. The only constitutionally authorized ways to combat gerrymandering is through state or congressional legislation.

In fact, various constitutional provisions are inconsistent with understanding the people of the state as the state legislature, as, for example, in the clause that provides “if [Senate] Vacancies happen by Resignation or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.” The people of the state do not take recesses. The Constitution may contemplate some variety in types of state legislatures, but it does not contemplate a popular vote of the people as a state legislature.

State Legislatures Alone or With Governors

Now, consider the second question. Sometimes the practice treats the state legislature as simply the two houses and at other times it treats it as the two houses along with presentment to the governor. But how can that practice be made consistent with the constitutional text?

Here, the answer turns on the type of activity that is assigned to the state legislature. If the activity involves passing a law, then the state legislature can use its normal process for passage of a law, which in virtually all states involves the possibility of a gubernatorial veto. Thus, when the Constitution confers on the state legislature the power to regulate “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” for members of the House of Representatives,” it contemplates an election governed by laws enacted by the state legislature. The legislature can then use its ordinary process for passing such laws.

By contrast, if the activity is simply a vote on a matter that does not require the passage of a law but instead is simply part of a process established by the Constitution, then the Constitution assigns the task entirely to the state legislature, without the governor’s participation. For example, the original Constitution provided that the “Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years.” Since selecting a Senator does not involve passage of a law, the governor is not involved. A similar result applies to the ratification of constitutional amendments, which does not involve passage of a law, but is simply part of a two part process established by the Constitution.

If this is the distinction that the Constitution draws, then how can we derive it from the text? In other words, how do we derive two different meanings from largely the same language, and how do we then determine which of these meanings apply in which situations? Let’s begin with deriving two different meanings from largely the same language. Significantly, this language is capable of both meanings. Sometimes the words state legislature are used to mean only the two houses—what we can call “the state legislature proper.” At other times, the words are used to refer to the two houses of the state legislature along with presentment to the governor—as when someone describes a law as having been enacted by the state legislature, even though the governor was involved. Thus, the language is perfectly consistent with both meanings.

Which of the two meanings was employed depends on the context. In the case of the Constitution assigning a task that involves passage of a law, such as regulating the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections, the context suggests enactment by the normal state legislative process for passing a law. In that situation, the Constitution is saying, the state legislature has the power to regulate by law the times, places and manner of holding elections. It does not need to say that explicitly because it is understood that such actions would normally be enacted through laws. By contrast, in the case of the Constitution assigning a task, such as selecting a Senator that does not involve passing a law, the term “state legislature” has its more straightforward or proper meaning.

The hardest provision to interpret is the one governing the selection of the Electoral College. The provision states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . . .” Historically, it appears that state legislatures have proceeded in two ways under this provision. When the legislature selected the electors, as happened in the early years of the Republic, the legislature proper would make the decision. When the legislature authorized an election to select the electors, the legislature did so through the ordinarily lawmaking process with an opportunity for gubernatorial veto.

Interpreting the provision to authorize this practice is something of a challenge. One would have to understand the provision to require that the legislature act by law when legislation is required and through the legislature proper when a law is not needed. That would require reading the provision to say “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature by law or on its own, as the circumstances require, may direct . . . .” Is this a permissible textual interpretation?

Admittedly, this interpretation is a bit of a stretch, but it does have some significant support in addition to fitting the practice. First, given that the other constitutional provisions involving the state legislature are properly interpreted as using the term to mean either the legislature proper or the legislature by law, depending on the context, this interpretation gains support as having a meaning that is reflected in these other constitutional provisions. It is a traditional canon of textual interpretation to read constitutional provisions to accord with other provisions in the Constitution. Second, since this interpretation fits the practice, this reading appears to be how state legislatures historically must have interpreted the provision.

In the end, the question of how to interpret the different constitutional provisions involving state legislatures is a challenge both for our constitutional understanding and for originalism. If it were impossible to reconcile these different provisions in a consistent way, as seems to be assumed by some nonoriginalists, then we would have a much poorer understanding of our Constitution. And it would give nonoriginalists greater freedom to choose how to interpret provisions, permitting them to reach results that they prefer on political grounds. But if I am right, the original meaning makes sense, can be understood, and places strict limits on how the Constitution applies to state legislatures in some extremely important cases.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; electionlaw; legislature
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2021 6:21:06 AM PDT by Loud Mime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Publius; Billthedrill; Jacquerie

Ping


2 posted on 04/19/2021 6:22:52 AM PDT by Loud Mime (A living and breathing Constitution empowers evil; Living and breathing Commandments do was well. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Like the EU, we are a federation of member countries. The US has 50 member countries. Over the decades we’ve lost that perspective and tend to see them more like counties in a state, rather than sovereign countries.

But they are. Mostly. Just like France and Germany.

We really need to get back to that perspective. There is so much stuff the FedGov sticks its fingers in that are none of its business.


3 posted on 04/19/2021 6:30:24 AM PDT by cuban leaf (We killed our economy and damaged our culture. In 2021 we will pine for the salad days of 2020.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

The Left could care less what is in the Constitution or for the constitution itself. all that matters to them is to have unchecked power by any means necessary and implementing the globalist/socialist agenda. The American nation is simply a temporarily useful vehicle that will eventually be abandoned and completely destroyed.


4 posted on 04/19/2021 6:30:35 AM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

The problem is, we no longer live in a world where most people lived their entire lives without venturing more than 100 miles from where they were born.


5 posted on 04/19/2021 6:31:56 AM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

But the Constitution is a “living document”, as the libtards are so fond of saying!

Let’s play poker and let the rules be ‘living’............. My pair of deuces, beats your royal flush................


6 posted on 04/19/2021 6:32:16 AM PDT by Red Badger ("We've always been at war with Climate Change, Winston."..............................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I prefer to call them independent states, but your analogy works. The fascist-democrats have federalized the entire nation, with the exception of the District of Columbia, yet they are now working on that.


7 posted on 04/19/2021 6:33:51 AM PDT by Loud Mime (A living and breathing Constitution empowers evil; Living and breathing Commandments do was well. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Wow, debating what is a state legislature is is stupid - in the league of how many angel can dance on the head of a pin stupid...


8 posted on 04/19/2021 6:40:44 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I’d go with lawfully elected representatives. Seems pretty simple. They are just trying to muddy the waters.


9 posted on 04/19/2021 7:12:51 AM PDT by refermech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

It does NOT refer to the State Executive!!!


10 posted on 04/19/2021 7:21:01 AM PDT by G Larry (Write in Donald J. Trump on ALL MLB All-Star Ballots!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

As tp the question posed in this paragraph”

“The Constitution’s frequent use of “state legislatures” requires two main questions to be answered. One question involves whether an entity other than the state legislature can take an action when the Constitution assigns that action to the state legislature. For example, the Constitution provides that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” the members of the Electoral College. Does that provision allow the state Constitution to override the state legislature’s decision as to the manner of appointing the electors? And if it does, can the courts enforce that constitutional provision to the detriment of the state legislature? In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court used the state constitution to override the election law that the state legislature had enacted. While the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the challenges to that decision, the question remains whether that action was constitutional under the U.S. Constitution.”

I think the U.S. Constitutions presumes that states have a state Constitution that (a) acts as the supreme/basic law of the state and (b) that Constitution is/was adopted by a “legislature” or direct vote of the people of the state.

Knowing that, then we can ask if a state Constitution can explicitly prevent an action of the state legislature that the U.S. Constitution assigns to the state legislature.

I don’t think that is what we had in the case of Pennsylvania. I think the Pennsylvania state Constitution, correctly read, assigned to the state courts the ability for the courts to challenge an action by the state legislature as to the manner of electing the electors. The Pennsylvania state court simply, merely errored completely in its interpretation of the Pennsylvania state constitution as to any mandate that Constitution has on HOW the state legislature’s actions regarding elections. The Pennsylvania court errored in assuming voters had any state Constitutional right to particular state rules passed by the legislature regarding elections. I think it was a right that the Pennsylvania state supreme court invented.

I think the legal question is actually can U.S. courts rule on the legitimacy of an action by a state court, when it is an action that is presumed to call upon the state’s Constitution as a basis for the state court’s action. Can federal courts rule on state Constitutionality questions?

In the general sense yes, if the question is a matter specified by the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

With Pennsylvania the question is whether it becomes a federal court matter because the U.S. constitution directs a certain obligation and power on state legislatures - selecting electors - or if it is not a federal matter because the U.S. Constitution presumes state legislatures will carry out that responsibility in accord with their state Constitutions, and whether or not legislators meet that test can be ruled on by state courts.

My view at the moment is that the latter case is where we are at, and the state court merely errored in its decision, as to whether or not the legislature acted against the bounds of the state Constitution. But if I am correct, the question becomes can the U.S. supreme court rule that a state supreme court misinterpreted its own state Constitution.

Is it possible for the Supreme court to issue an answer that says how it thinks a state court errored, but takes no action because the SCOTUS acknowledges it cannot bind the state court on that matter?


11 posted on 04/19/2021 7:35:37 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

At this juncture in our history, it is time to accept that the Constitution is truly a dead letter, the Bill of Rights is no longer in force, and the now-defunct former USA is in the grip of an illegitimate, tyrannical junta in DC. Any arguments or claims that rely on what the Constitution says or doesn’t say are just tilting at windmills amounting to nothing more that a fart in the wind.

The only way forward for those Americans who still value their freedom and liberty is state-by-state nullification, non-compliance, and secession from the illegitimate, criminal junta in DC. GOPee Delenda Est!


12 posted on 04/19/2021 7:50:53 AM PDT by DrPretorius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
If we believe that states are like sovereign countries and those sovereign countries decide to change election procedures via their executive or judicial branches then I guess the Supreme Court did the right thing by staying out of the fight.

It seems that conservatives who wanted the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the state legislatures were just doing so because the state legislatures at this time happen to be more conservative than the state courts or executive branches.

Similar arguments are made regarding a desire to repeal the 17th Amendment: currently if all state legislatures voted along party lines then the senate would be solidly Republican.

But if the 17th Amendment were repealed and the Supreme Court had given preference to state legislatures in election matters, then over time the Dems would make a more concerted effort to gain control of the state legislatures.

Then every layer of government would be ruled by a single party and we would truly be a nation of provinces rather than a federation of countries.

13 posted on 04/19/2021 8:04:23 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (This is not a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

And just like the EU would function better with separate monetary systems. (England never was part of Euro) So would our states. The Fed Reserve/unconstitutional wage taxes/Fiat money, dominates the political process.


14 posted on 04/19/2021 8:43:39 AM PDT by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

But if the 17th Amendment were repealed and the Supreme Court had given preference to state legislatures in election matters, then over time the Dems would make a more concerted effort to gain control of the state legislatures.


But that would be very difficult. It’s harder to fool people in a small area than in a large area. You are more “known”.


15 posted on 04/19/2021 8:45:48 AM PDT by cuban leaf (We killed our economy and damaged our culture. In 2021 we will pine for the salad days of 2020.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

But if I am correct, the question becomes can the U.S. supreme court rule that a state supreme court misinterpreted its own state Constitution.

Is it possible for the Supreme court to issue an answer that says how it thinks a state court errored, but takes no action because the SCOTUS acknowledges it cannot bind the state court on that matter?>>>> And that begs the question. Did the framers of all of our constitutions realize that courts would be able to make laws that they could enforce. And of course. No court can really enforce it’s legislation. The executive branches defer and enforce the courts legislative process.


16 posted on 04/19/2021 8:49:01 AM PDT by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Bookmark


17 posted on 04/19/2021 8:51:30 AM PDT by Pajamajan ( PRAY FOR OUR NATION. I will ever be a peaceful slave in a new Socialist America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Bingo.


18 posted on 04/19/2021 8:57:44 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 14themunny; 21stCenturion; 300magnum; A Strict Constructionist; abigail2; AdvisorB; Aggie Mama; ...
Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping.

This is an interesting article on originalism and federalism with respect to elections.

19 posted on 04/19/2021 9:02:45 AM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Perhaps the answer to your question is in Article VI Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

By "laws of any state," would this include state constitutions as well? What about amending the state constitution in a way that is in violation of the federal Constitution?

If the Constitution grants the state legislatures the power to redistrict, but the people vote to amend the state constitution to take that power away from legislatures, does it matter if opposition is "ripe" or not? The Constitution cannot be amended by de facto lateness in challenging state laws or state constitutional amendments.

If election officials or state courts ignore established election law passed by the state legislatures and signed by the governor, that should be challenged under Article VI that holds judges accountable to the federal Constitution over the state constitution.

-PJ

20 posted on 04/19/2021 9:15:45 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (* LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson