Posted on 12/06/2022 5:26:08 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Just eight days before the 2020 presidential election, conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion involving a Wisconsin voting dispute that "state courts do not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws for federal elections."
Kavanaugh's words, along with those of some of his fellow conservative justices criticizing state courts in other election-related disputes, foreshadowed a major case set to be argued on Wednesday that could hand politicians more power over the conduct of elections and limit the ability of state courts.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is due to hear an appeal of a February decision by North Carolina's top court to throw out a map delineating the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives.
The Republican North Carolina lawmakers making the appeal are asking the Supreme Court to embrace a legal theory - once marginal but now gaining traction in conservative legal circles - called the "independent state legislature" doctrine, or ISL.
Critics have said any Supreme Court endorsement of the doctrine could upend American democratic norms by restricting a crucial check on partisan political power and breed voter confusion with rules that vary between state and federal contests.
"The current version of 'ISL' was dreamed up by conservative ideologues who don't want voters to have more rights and therefore have been eroding voting rights across the board," said Marc Elias, a prominent election lawyer who has represented the Democratic Party in numerous court cases.
"It's a mission by conservative academics and others to undermine the ability to protect regular citizens' rights to vote," Elias added.
The doctrine is based in part on language in the Constitution that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
A republic no more.
They no longer need credibility.
“The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority”
ha!
The best you can say is 6 are not 100% partisan hacks and I’m not even sure about that.
I have thought for awhile that each state being in complete control of federal voting could be a conflict of interest, unless everyone was honest and law-abiding.
I don’t know much about your laws, but it seems to me that dem controlled states could certainly do a number on a presidential candidate. I don’t know what the answer is, other than separate ballots for president? Of course it could work in reverse.....feds in charge of presidential election and controlling some red states.
Oh what a dangled web we weave.....
It is just in the Constitution, therefore it is a "marginal legal theory"./S
If this is upheld, which it should be, the Alaska ranked choice voting is right out. It was never approved by the legislature.
If Elias is against it, I’m for it. Here in Pas., voter I.D. was passed into law in April of an election year. It was overturned in a Philly court 2 weeks before the election. That is the lind of crap they pull here.
What they also have to do is leave the legal definition of a Governor’s Emergency Powers up to Legislatures and ONLY Legislatures. What happened in NC in 2020 was the SSC declared that the Governor could basically do whatever he wanted under Emergency Powers and that included voiding rules for absentee ballots.
My first thought while skimming this article.
Banana Republic...here we come! Or are we already there?
Guess we need to review another fringe concept. The sky is blue. Didn’t everyone just fall over themselves say how important the Constitution is. Not so much it seems. What is unclear about “the manner of elections is determined by the legislature” Not a new idea as old as well the Constitution.
What’s left is the Athens, TN approach to corruption, if the courts are going to refuse to correct the issues.
“It is just in the Constitution, therefore it is a “marginal legal theory”
It seems the definition and interpretation of “Legislature” is the problem.
I’ve done a little reading on this in the past couple of days, and it’s not a good thing. Might sound okay to some if the conservatives are in charge of the state, but definitely not when the Liberals are. So best to be against it.
I agree with others that it would be the downfall of our democratic republic.
One sided propaganda disguised as “news.” Yahoo! is as much a joke as CNN and the Washington Compost.
3rd World Country.
How does freedom die? To thunderous applause.
The courts actually helped us in New York. We probably wouldn’t be in the majority without it.
That language seems pretty plain to me....
"State courts" don't have the power, but state legislatures most certainly do, although the interference of federal judges in the name of "reducing discrimination" has seemed to over-ride that.
This would seem to limit what Elias did by suing in each state to have courts change what election laws are - not judicial scrutiny to make sure election laws were followed.
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.