Posted on 12/10/2022 9:03:46 AM PST by Twotone
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Moore v. Harper, a case that turns on the meaning of a key provision in the Constitution outlining the Framers’ structure for congressional elections.
It is a complex case and although it’s difficult to predict how the high court will rule, the justices sharply questioned lawyer David Thompson, who represents the North Carolina legislators who petitioned the court for review.
Thompson was up against two former solicitor generals of the U.S. representing private plaintiffs, as well as the current solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, because the Biden administration has taken the opposing side in the case.
The state legislators, in what Justice Elena Kagan acknowledged is a “novel challenge,” are contesting the actions of the North Carolina Supreme Court. The lawmakers claim it is unconstitutional for state courts to override the decisions of state legislatures in passing election laws and drafting congressional maps that fully comply with all the requirements of federal law.
State courts shouldn’t be able to change such laws or devise their own legislative maps—often to reach a partisan result—based on novel and unprecedented interpretations of state constitutions, the legislators argue. This, they say, is barred by the Constitution’s elections clause[MK1] .
The elections clause, Art. I, Sec. 4, states that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature,” although Congress retains the authority to “alter such Regulations.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
Trump was directly harmed by non legislative actors in 2020.
Will the Court rule that courts rule everything ? LOL
Only under threat of FBI blackmail ***cough Roberts cough***.
It was put in place by referendum, with no input from the legislature.
Good point.
marktwain wrote: “If the Court acts with integrity, and finds the Constitution means what it says, the “ranked place voting” system in Alaska is gone. It was put in place by referendum, with no input from the legislature.”
Did the legislature authorize the referendum?
Is it consistent with the state constitution?
If this suit wins, only your first question has any merit.
Alas Babylon! wrote: “If this suit wins, only your first question has any merit.”
Please. That suit only covers legislative drawing of congressional districts and would not affect the 2020 election in any manner.
Depending on Alaska's state constitution, generally speaking a referendum passed directly by the voters cannot be further modified by the state legislature. Only another referendum can remove it.
State referendums which violate the federal constitution, are invalid.
The Alaska legislature did not authorize or initiate the referendum.
This case is moot because it was already decided in Bush v. Gore (2000). The Supreme Court ruled at that time that courts do not have the authority to make or change election laws. The Court declared that only State Legislatures have that “authority derived from the United States Constitution, and derived from 3 U.S.C. §5.” Justice Rehnquist argued in addition that the recount order was invalid because it effectively created new election law in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves that power to the state legislatures.
Why they are hashing out issues that were already addressed and decided in a previous Supreme Court decision is beyond me.
If the Supreme Court says that according to the US Constitution, only legislatures can provide voting rules, than the referendum, if not passed by the legislature, is moot.
That’s if they (the Alaskan legislature) vote against it.
That’s all I am saying.
Why they are hashing out issues that were already addressed and decided in a previous Supreme Court decision is beyond me.
_____
Because the liberal NC courts wants to block the Republican legislature from redistricting. Suddenly gerrymandering is a problem for them, although the Dems did it for years.
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.