Supreme Court hears high stakes election case

“In high-stakes election case, justices will decide validity of “independent state legislature” theory”

“The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday in a case that UCLA law professor Richard Hasen has called the “800-pound gorilla” of election law. The case, Moore v. Harper, is a test of the “independent state legislature” theory – the idea that the Constitution gives state legislatures nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections, with little to no interference from state courts. Depending on whether the justices agree with the theory and how broadly they interpret it, it has the potential to upend federal elections by eliminating virtually all oversight of those elections by state courts.”

“The independent state legislature theory rests on two provisions of the Constitution. The provision directly at issue in Moore, Article I’s elections clause, says that the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Similarly, Article II’s electors clause says that states shall appoint presidential electors for the Electoral College “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

“Proponents of the theory argue that, under the plain text of those two clauses, state courts are not authorized to supervise how state legislatures run elections for Congress or the president. Critics argue that neither clause was ever understood – including at the time of the Founding — to confer such unchecked authority on state legislatures.”

“The Supreme Court has never endorsed the independent state legislature theory in a majority opinion.”

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/ne...=newthread&f=4

Interesting case, which if I am reading it correctly, basically means State Legislatures can ignore their own State Courts and in effect their State Constitution that created those Legislatures

Established precedent here suggests the case should have never have even reached the SCOTUS, but as we know, this Court isn’t big on established precedent. Going to be difficult applying Originalism here, finding historical evidence, especially since the balance of power coupled with checks and balances was the framework central to the Founders thinking

 

Can't wait to see how this turns out! Considering the implications, I'm guessing we will continue down the road to tyranny and authoritarianism

 

There is not a bridge that Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch aren't willing to cross. So our Democracy might be in the hands of two justices who are proven liars and a wishy-washy Chief Justice.

 

Certainly would up end many of the principles the Founding Fathers felt were essential

 

And they do it with such pretentious authoritarianism

 

Not to aware of the case, but judging by the few comments here it sounds like a pretty good thing.

 

Allowing State Legislatures to have absolute control over all elections with no checking entity would be a good thing?

 

Must be

 

I don’t know, we’ve gone over two centuries with it and we still surviving

 

ARE WE THOUGH? ARE WE?