Supreme Court Rejects “independent state legislature theory”

[wing2000]

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the theory that state legislatures have almost unlimited power to decide the rules for federal elections and draw partisan congressional maps without interference from state courts.

The Constitution’s Elections Clause “does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a 6 to 3 decision."

The “independent state legislature theory” holds that the U.S. Constitution gives that power to lawmakers even if it results in extreme partisan voting maps for congressional seats and violates voter protections enshrined in state constitutions.

But Roberts wrote that was wrong, within limits.
“Although we conclude that the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, state courts do not have free rein,” he wrote. State courts “may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/27/moore-v-harper-supreme-court-rejects/

 

[Yttrium]

Good. The state legislatures should always be bound by the state constitutions.

 

[WolfGate]

Given they made a decision, the one they made was not a surprise. There was the possibility that since the NC Supreme Court has changed status of the lawsuit that began this case, the Supreme Court would simply claim making a decision no longer needed since the initial issue was now moot. Noting the 6-3 decision, it is significant that the dissents were only referencing that “moot” point and not in support of the whacky independent state legislature theory. The fact that this ever got to where the Supreme Court needed to be involved is a pretty condemning indicator of the political times we are currently in.

 

[variant]

Given they made a decision, the one they made was not a surprise. There was the possibility that since the NC Supreme Court has changed status of the lawsuit that began this case, the Supreme Court would simply claim making a decision no longer needed since the initial issue was now moot. Noting the 6-3 decision, it is significant that the dissents were only referencing that “moot” point and not in support of the whacky independent state legislature theory. The fact that this ever got to where the Supreme Court needed to be involved is a pretty condemning indicator of the political times we are currently in.

It was in fact, a pretty dumb argument, that flew in the face of hundreds of years of legal theory.

The Supreme Court seems to have taken the case in order to rebuke a certain swath of the partisan electorate that thinks they can get away with such things.

Good on them I suppose.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It was in fact, a pretty dumb argument, that flew in the face of hundreds of years of legal theory.

The Supreme Court seems to have taken the case in order to rebuke a certain swath of the partisan electorate that thinks they can get away with such things.

Good on them I suppose.

Yeah, I guess I'm happy with the ruling lol, although I wonder how much of it is sincere, and how much is sort of a "stick up for your own branch" type of thing, where the Judicial branch at one level seeks to keep their branch as the "place where the buck stops" on certain matters.

But then again I've been known to be a tad cynical, so maybe there heart was in the right place.

 

[Goonie]

Yeah, I guess I'm happy with the ruling lol, although I wonder how much of it is sincere, and how much is sort of a "stick up for your own branch" type of thing, where the Judicial branch at one level seeks to keep their branch as the "place where the buck stops" on certain matters.

But then again I've been known to be a tad cynical, so maybe there heart was in the right place.

It seems pretty obvious that if the state legislature is responsible for managing federal elections, then guess what the state judiciary is "where the buck stops".

For most of the supreme court it should have been one of the easiest decisions on the docket.

 

[variant]

Yeah, I guess I'm happy with the ruling lol, although I wonder how much of it is sincere, and how much is sort of a "stick up for your own branch" type of thing, where the Judicial branch at one level seeks to keep their branch as the "place where the buck stops" on certain matters.

But then again I've been known to be a tad cynical, so maybe there heart was in the right place.

Even so, partisans putting branch of the government before political party is something nowadays.