This is the outcome of the NC case test of the “independent legislature theory.” The 6-3 opinion was penned by Roberts, with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting.
This is the outcome of the NC case test of the “independent legislature theory.” The 6-3 opinion was penned by Roberts, with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting.
It appears the dissents were because they thought the case should have been dismissed. Does that mean it should never have gotten to the Supreme Court, or that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have...
It appears the dissents were because they thought the case should have been dismissed. Does that mean it should never have gotten to the Supreme Court, or that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have heard it and let the lower court ruling stand?
A ruling seems to make sense to avoid other similar cases in the future, but I don’t know if that’s accurate.
The legislators had asked the justices to embrace a once-marginal legal theory, called the "independent state legislature" doctrine, that would remove any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections. The theory is based in part on the U.S. Constitution's statement that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."
"The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review," Roberts wrote of that constitutional provision.
Roberts was joined by fellow conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett as well as the court's three liberal members. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, saying the case should have been dismissed.
I actually have to side with the dissenters in this case, this has opened up federal legal review of state election laws. As far as I understand states are constitutionally supposed to be...
I actually have to side with the dissenters in this case, this has opened up federal legal review of state election laws. As far as I understand states are constitutionally supposed to be independent of Federal oversight which functions as another separation of powers. The suit should have been dismissed to both show that the theory holds no legal standing, allowing state judiciaries to police the legislatures, while not bringing state run elections into federal purview.
Edit: I am speaking specifically within the context of the ruling about federal judicial oversight of state elections, which has never been codified in case law before. I am not speaking about States Rights theories, or legislated federal oversight of states
that's not accurate. from section 1 of the 14th Amendment: and the Enforcement Act of 1870: or the 1965 Voting Rights Act: federal oversight of state governments in general, and state elections in...
As far as I understand states are constitutionally supposed to be independent of Federal oversight
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Enforcement Act of 1870 prohibited discrimination by state officials in voter registration on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It established penalties for interfering with a person's right to vote and gave federal courts the power to enforce the act.
Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits state and local government from imposing any voting rule that "results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color" or membership in a language minority group.
federal oversight of state governments in general, and state elections in particular, is extremely precedented territory.
allowing state judiciaries to police the legislatures, while not bringing state run elections into federal purview.
importantly, state courts still have jurisdiction to review the actions of state legislatures. this decision does not change that.
what this decision affirms is that those state courts are not the only check on state legislative power. federal courts also have jurisdiction. this is the status quo and has been for 150 years.
Everything you have cited is legislative, I'm speaking particularly about judicial oversight. This explicitly opens the door to federal election losers to sue at the federal level for cause based...
Everything you have cited is legislative, I'm speaking particularly about judicial oversight. This explicitly opens the door to federal election losers to sue at the federal level for cause based on state legislature misconduct or based on state judicial rulings regarding elections (e.g. absentee ballot deadlines). Trust that we are going to see federal lawsuits based this new precedent in future elections
In a sense, opponents of independent legislature theory have won the battle but have opened up many new frontlines in the war. And your analysis is wrong if you believe that federal courts always had domain in this regard, they have not but the ruling by the Supreme Court now sets that precedent.
Again, it would have been better to dismiss the suit. It still denies the ISL theorists claims without affirming federal court's right to interfere between the state judicial review process. It closes the door on ISL without opening the door to the crazy lawsuits we are going to be seeing now
That was admittedly poorly formulated, I am speaking to the subject of the article which is specifically Federal Judicial oversight of the state election process for federal elections
That was admittedly poorly formulated, I am speaking to the subject of the article which is specifically Federal Judicial oversight of the state election process for federal elections
That's already been legislated and would be taken to court at the Federal level as a conflict between State and Federal legislatures. The scope recently opened up by the Supreme Court is to now...
That's already been legislated and would be taken to court at the Federal level as a conflict between State and Federal legislatures. The scope recently opened up by the Supreme Court is to now allow lawsuits at the federal level open to "conflicts" between federal courts and State legislatures where election laws have been adjudicated on the state level. What you and I are talking about are two very different things
Supreme court ruled previously, preventing the stopping of generic gerrymandering (which is bullshit, but we need a new law to stop it)
Now the GOP is getting in trouble for gerrymandering because of Race, so they were asking the supreme court to stop that too
arising from a legal fight over their map of North Carolina's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts. The state's top court last year blocked the map as unlawfully biased against Democratic voters
Roberts: The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review
so the GOP was asking to even limit the states own power, in oversight of its federal elections, based on state law
This is the outcome of the NC case test of the “independent legislature theory.” The 6-3 opinion was penned by Roberts, with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting.
It appears the dissents were because they thought the case should have been dismissed. Does that mean it should never have gotten to the Supreme Court, or that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have heard it and let the lower court ruling stand?
A ruling seems to make sense to avoid other similar cases in the future, but I don’t know if that’s accurate.
I actually have to side with the dissenters in this case, this has opened up federal legal review of state election laws. As far as I understand states are constitutionally supposed to be independent of Federal oversight which functions as another separation of powers. The suit should have been dismissed to both show that the theory holds no legal standing, allowing state judiciaries to police the legislatures, while not bringing state run elections into federal purview.
Edit: I am speaking specifically within the context of the ruling about federal judicial oversight of state elections, which has never been codified in case law before. I am not speaking about States Rights theories, or legislated federal oversight of states
that's not accurate.
from section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
and the Enforcement Act of 1870:
or the 1965 Voting Rights Act:
federal oversight of state governments in general, and state elections in particular, is extremely precedented territory.
importantly, state courts still have jurisdiction to review the actions of state legislatures. this decision does not change that.
what this decision affirms is that those state courts are not the only check on state legislative power. federal courts also have jurisdiction. this is the status quo and has been for 150 years.
Everything you have cited is legislative, I'm speaking particularly about judicial oversight. This explicitly opens the door to federal election losers to sue at the federal level for cause based on state legislature misconduct or based on state judicial rulings regarding elections (e.g. absentee ballot deadlines). Trust that we are going to see federal lawsuits based this new precedent in future elections
In a sense, opponents of independent legislature theory have won the battle but have opened up many new frontlines in the war. And your analysis is wrong if you believe that federal courts always had domain in this regard, they have not but the ruling by the Supreme Court now sets that precedent.
Again, it would have been better to dismiss the suit. It still denies the ISL theorists claims without affirming federal court's right to interfere between the state judicial review process. It closes the door on ISL without opening the door to the crazy lawsuits we are going to be seeing now
As i understand, we had a civil war about that. Southern states wanted slaves. theres limits.
That was admittedly poorly formulated, I am speaking to the subject of the article which is specifically Federal Judicial oversight of the state election process for federal elections
within reason still.
if a state wanted to say they weren't counting black votes again.. that too would be unconstitutional
That's already been legislated and would be taken to court at the Federal level as a conflict between State and Federal legislatures. The scope recently opened up by the Supreme Court is to now allow lawsuits at the federal level open to "conflicts" between federal courts and State legislatures where election laws have been adjudicated on the state level. What you and I are talking about are two very different things
..based on the 15th amendment.
Judges were forcing a redraw of maps based on the 15th amendment (They were gerrymandering out based on race)
https://news.wjct.org/state-news/2023-05-23/federal-judge-throws-out-miami-district-map-over-allegations-of-racial-gerrymandering
https://rollcall.com/2023/01/06/judges-order-south-carolina-to-redraw-congressional-map/
Supreme court ruled previously, preventing the stopping of generic gerrymandering (which is bullshit, but we need a new law to stop it)
Now the GOP is getting in trouble for gerrymandering because of Race, so they were asking the supreme court to stop that too
so the GOP was asking to even limit the states own power, in oversight of its federal elections, based on state law
I’m glad they got this one right, because the other way could have been very bad.
I mean, this seems so fundementally open/shut that those dissenters should probably be straight-up removed from duties.