[77 / 1 / 27]
Another Big L taken by the fascist right's war on democracy although pro-fascists judges on the bench exposed themselves.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-elections-state-legislatures-a620db8c1ad30fc34b3ab0c81b29b87c
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the radical argument brought forward in the controversial case of Moore v. Harper that state legislatures have the sole power to draw congressional district maps and set election law.
The independent state legislature theory that Republicans in the North Carolina legislature wanted the court to adopt claims that the U.S. Constitution vests power to set the “time, place, and manner” of federal elections to state legislatures alone. This would give state courts no ability to rule on gerrymandered maps or other election laws that may run afoul of their respective state constitution. State legislatures, themselves often gerrymandered to give one party majority control, would then have free rein to draw congressional maps and set election laws without judicial checks and balances.
The court rejected this theory in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts by affirming the role that judicial review by state courts still plays in judging district maps drawn and election laws passed by state legislatures. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts’ opinion. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
“We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not,” Roberts wrote. “The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-elections-state-legislatures-a620db8c1ad30fc34b3ab0c81b29b87c
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the radical argument brought forward in the controversial case of Moore v. Harper that state legislatures have the sole power to draw congressional district maps and set election law.
The independent state legislature theory that Republicans in the North Carolina legislature wanted the court to adopt claims that the U.S. Constitution vests power to set the “time, place, and manner” of federal elections to state legislatures alone. This would give state courts no ability to rule on gerrymandered maps or other election laws that may run afoul of their respective state constitution. State legislatures, themselves often gerrymandered to give one party majority control, would then have free rein to draw congressional maps and set election laws without judicial checks and balances.
The court rejected this theory in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts by affirming the role that judicial review by state courts still plays in judging district maps drawn and election laws passed by state legislatures. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts’ opinion. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
“We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not,” Roberts wrote. “The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”
