The ISLT has been rejected by the Court

Supreme Court rules against North Carolina Republicans over election law theory

On Tuesday, the court rejected the idea that the so-called “independent state legislature theory” gives state legislatures broad power over federal elections, without any role for state courts in supervising the exercise of that power. The majority affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to set aside a congressional map deemed a partisan gerrymander.
https://www.scotusblog.com/

It was a bridge too far, even for this Court. It would have vested state legislatures with the enormous power to draw maps, pass election laws and cook up voter restrictions unchecked. I can only imagine how the power to do so would have been used by Repubs given the number of voter suppression laws they have already passed.

Democracy dodged a bullet.

 

Although 6-3 is concerning.

 

For God's sake did you even READ the ****ing dissents to see what they were about?
Spoiler alert: Its not about the substantive issue but the procedural posture of the case.

 

I think that spells trouble for the Republican majority in the House, if this continues. They know they can NEVER win the house again if the Supreme Court gets in the way if Gerrymandering in too many states.

 

the very idea of islt is a mockery of checks and balances.

i really expected these "justices" to dig deep in some obscure founder's letters to justify this "original intent. "

 

Thank god, that would have been the end of the nation.

 

That’s what makes it concerning for those with a ****ing stovepiped thought process.

 

Hardly. It would just make it slightly more difficult for a location to shift from Democrat to republican or vis versa. Frankly, I think locations should resist change in order to preserve the home to the way it was for the longest living population who built the town over the newcomers.

 

So you don't understand that the SCOTUS doesn't get to simply rule on any case it might be interesting to hear them prattle on and rule make about?

Again, serious question here you've dodged: DID YOU EVEN READ THE DISSENTS YOU'RE COMPLAINING OF?

 

Did you read the ****ing dissents?

 

Are you kidding? Whack-job states with republican majority legislatures would overturn every election that didn't go in their favor. In four years there wouldn't be a single Democrat in office in any of them.

 

The ruling was in reference to gerrymandering. The states still have to follow the constitution. But nothing in the constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide how districts should be drawn.

 

Indeed. The extremism of a few of the bench's conservatives (typically Thomas and Alito at a minimum are solidly in the nutbag column) is off the charts.

 

You recognize the contradiction, right?

 

Contraindication with poorly written news articles making false claims about the rulings?

 

The first order of business if Democrats ever gain a voting majority should be to impeach Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Those two have not only proven themselves to be openly corrupt but also simply shitty people.

 

The ruling was in re the independent state legislature theory and fortunately for us they shot it down.

I gotta admit I didn't expect them to.

 

I've read some reactions to the ruling suggesting while the ISLT was simply too batshyte crazy to take seriously, conservatives on the Court signaled in the text of the ruling they might be open to giving state legislatures more power over elections than they currently have. So expect the Repubs to try to corrupt elections in their favor again before giving up.

 

Wouldn't they need a 2/3 majority in the Senate? I confess to not knowing the vote threshold.

 

and when they do, who would stop them, if the ISLT had been upheld? If you are going to say 'congress', that isn't very comforting to me, when Congress can hardly
get it's **** together on just about anything, and when congress, itself, is subject to partisan shenanigans.

I don't buy this idea that we must limit our horizons solely to what men of 233 years ago could think of. There is no way in hell they could think of everything, and just because it's not in the constitution, doesn't mean we, in modernity, cannot apply the law according to demands of modernity.

If the ISLT had not been shot down, there is nothing stopping a partisan state legislature from allowing gerrymandering to it's partisan hearts content, nothing stopping them from allowing a state legislature to replace the elector state won by the opponent because they are 'suspicious' of the outcome then didn't like, and this idea that if they had violated the US Constitution, that all we have to do is have someone sue the state legislature, and wait until congress to save us, when, by the time they would save us, IF they did, the damage will have already been done, someone would be elected who didn't earn it, and that isn't very comforting to me, anyway.

Sorry, the 6-3 ruling was right. Frankly, the only thing that disturbs me that there were three justices that voted to uphold ISLT.

 

No, contradiction in saying the Constitution must be adhered to while claiming the SC has no jurisdiction to enforce violations of said controlling document. The ruling had to do with whether state legislatures had plenary power to overrule state Supreme Courts, and the electorate, in matters related to elections.

Moore v. Harper was the gravest threat to free and fair elections in the United States to arrive at the Court in decades. And, while Tuesday’s 6-3 decision leaves the door slightly ajar should a future Court wish to overturn a close election, it rejects more sweeping theories that could have rendered many American elections meaningless.

It is also the Court’s second decision defending the foundations of US democracy this month — a reassuring and slightly surprising turn after some of its decisions regarding voting rights and elections in the last few years.

Moore involved the awkwardly named “independent state legislature doctrine” (ISLD), a theory that the Supreme Court rejected many times over the course of more than a century. Yet this theory also started to gain steam as former President Donald Trump filled three seats on the Court with staunch conservatives.

The ISLD takes two lines from the Constitution concerning election administration and misleadingly argues that they mean a state’s legislative branch of government has effectively unchecked authority to decide how congressional and presidential elections will be conducted in their state.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/2...nt-state-legislature-north-carolina-bush-gore

 

Voting majority would be 2/3rds. Correct

 

In that case, impeachment is a waste of time. Repubs would no sooner impeach Clarence or Sam than they would Trump, no matter how compelling the evidence.

 

I agree — Which is why I said if democrats ever have a voting majority

 

Even a super majority, allowing them a filibuster proof majority, wouldn't be enough. Sadly, it's not going to happen. The best we can hope for is their corrupt practices stop due to the attention they are getting.