Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“In a major election-law decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that although the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate federal elections, state courts can supervise the legislature’s exercise of that power. By a vote of 6-3, the court rejected the so-called ‘independent state legislature theory,’ holding that the North Carolina Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution when it set aside a congressional map adopted by the state’s legislature.” SCOTUSblog
The right is critical of the decision, arguing that it will encourage lawsuits.
“On the one hand, [Roberts] says state legislatures are subject to state judicial review under the state constitution when they write election law. But he also stresses that ‘state courts do not have free rein’ and ‘this Court has an obligation to ensure that state court interpretations of state law do not evade federal law.’ So state court election rulings will be subject to U.S. Supreme Court review. Yet the majority declined to adopt a standard for reviewing such state court decisions…
“Partisans routinely challenge state ballot laws in election years, and state courts often intervene at the last minute. Democratic attorney Marc Elias has built an entire legal practice doing this. The Court’s Moore ruling will invite more such legal elections mischief.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“Former President Barack Obama applauded the majority’s decision, claiming the ‘independent state legislature theory’ is a ‘fringe’ theory that ‘threatened to upend our democracy and dismantle our system of checks and balances.’ But what upends democracy is having state court judges overturning the decision of a large group of legislators who were elected by the voters of a state when they had no authority to do so…
“The reality is that we have seen an overwhelming explosion of lawsuits in federal courts contesting state election laws ever since the contest in Florida over the 2000 presidential election. There seems little doubt that Thomas’ prediction will prove to be correct that this latest decision will cause even more suits to be filed, and more confusion and chaos, and that it will lead to federal courts getting more deeply involved in, as he says, ‘state constitutional law.’”
Hans von Spakovsky, Daily Signal
“In political terms, the decision may be good news for House Republicans. A crucial factor in the current House GOP majority, for example, came when New York’s highest court threw out a Democratic gerrymander under the state constitution. Had the Court in Moore held that state constitutions cannot limit the work of state legislatures in redistricting, the New York legislature would have been empowered to ignore that ruling going forward.”
Dan McLaughlin, National Review
The left praises the decision, arguing that state courts are an important safeguard for democracy.
The left praises the decision, arguing that state courts are an important safeguard for democracy.
“Mr. Trump’s attorneys and advocates seized on an extreme interpretation of independent state legislature theory in the wake of his 2020 loss to try to persuade state legislatures to reject certified results that favored Joe Biden, and to suggest that Vice President Mike Pence could accept alternate slates of electors… Thankfully, this week, the Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, affirming that, within limits, state courts can overrule state legislatures on federal election rules…
“Also encouraging is the Supreme Court’s choice to weigh in so forcefully on the merits when it had an easy out: The North Carolina Supreme Court had reversed the decision that was under challenge… Justice Samuel A. Alito took this course, not saying either way whether he supported independent state legislature theory but merely declaring the entire matter moot…
“His colleagues in the majority sent another message: The Supreme Court will remain a bulwark against sieges on democracy’s foundations — at least when the attacks are this egregious.”
Editorial Board, Washington Post
“The ruling means that state courts can still freely enforce state constitutional rights and guarantees, as they have for hundreds of years. The case threatened to make state legislatures ‘independent’ of the usual checks against abuse when they regulate federal elections. But common sense prevailed, and our system of checks and balances still stands. As Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the majority opinion, ‘The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.’…
“[The decision] has come in the nick of time. The 2024 elections are around the corner. If the court had veered in the other direction, it would have upended centuries of election law and practice on the eve of a contentious contest. It would also have supercharged efforts to sabotage elections and empowered state legislatures to abuse their election powers. Instead of sowing chaos, this decision leaves the state and federal courts in a position to protect voting rights and democracy.”
Wendy Weiser, Los Angeles Times
