![]() ![]() When states exercise that authority, their laws have to comply with both federal constitutional requirements and laws (such as the federal Voting Rights Act) as well as state constitutional requirements (like anti-gerrymandering provisions that may be in a state’s constitution). The federal Constitution gives states the authority to regulate the “manner” of conducting federal elections in the state. In other words, a state Supreme Court would no longer have the right to decide whether state laws dealing with federal elections comply with the state’s own constitution. ![]() Simply put, it would prevent state courts from reviewing laws passed by state legislatures to redistrict congressional seats, or to establish voting rules or other laws applicable to federal elections. The independent state legislature theory has long been considered by many to be a radical, fringe idea. They claim the state court’s decision violates the independent state legislature theory. The case involves a gerrymandered North Carolina congressional map that was rejected by the state’s Supreme Court and is being defended by North Carolina legislators. Harper will be argued before the Supreme Court on December 7. Harper could dramatically and dangerously rewrite American democracy. ![]() Make no mistake, the Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper, state legislatures will be empowered to override the choice of voters on Election Day in a presidential election. That misconception is this-if the “independent state legislature theory” is adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. There is a misconception that needs to be clarified about the potential impact of an upcoming Supreme Court case. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |