United States | News & Politics

7146 readers

220 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Supreme Court rejects independent state legislature theory (www.npr.org)

submitted 1 year ago by mjgood91 to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that state constitutions can protect voting rights in federal elections and state courts can enforce those provisions, in a key opinion that should safeguard the integrity of the 2024 election.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DevCat 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Why am I not surprised? Of course those three would go against the prevailing judicial opinion and in favor of their own partisan view.

Opposing the independent state legislature theory in the Supreme Court were not only Democratic partisans, but a vast array of election law experts, important scholars on the left and right, judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, and the Conference of State Chief Justices, representing the chiefs in all 50 states.

...Roberts wrote in his majority opinion: "The elections clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections."

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What in hell does it take to get these two impeached??

[–] axtualdave 5 points 1 year ago

A 2/3rd majority in both houses of Congress.

[–] jenings 5 points 1 year ago

Aka the bribery caucus

[–] whatuptrey 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The dissent didn’t state that the case should have gone the opposite way… they argued that the case should be moot based on the fact that the original dispute that caused the case had been settled. At least, that’s my understanding.

[–] TipRing 5 points 1 year ago

He wants to leave room for ISL in the future, though considering how this court treats precedent I am not sure it matters.

[–] jumperalex 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

yeah that was my take away too from a very quick scan. I honestly couldn't be bothered to read the entire dissent because I couldn't imagine WTF Thomas needed that many pages to say the court didn't need to even decide the case. He started off with a bunch of "we don't 'advise'" themes and then I just lost interest. I'm hoping SCOTUS blog does a decent summary of the decent. If it seems interesting enough maybe I'll take the time to read the full text.

But based on his theme my answer would be, "yeah maybe. But you know what else the SCOTUS should do, take cases and issue decisions when it's obvious 'this shit ain't dead' and maybe, just maybe, you all should put a nail in the coffin of stupid ideas to remove all ambiguity"

[–] derf82 2 points 1 year ago

Even Alito wasn’t endorsing ISLT. The Thomas dissent is in 2 parts. The first merely argues the case was moot as the NC Supreme Court was rehearing the case. Alito only joined that part. The second part is where Thomas, now only joined by Gorsuch, argues the Constitution gives legislators unlimited power on redistricting.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Do we know why they dissented? In another article it referenced that they didn't think a ruling was appropriate because the NC courts overturning the ruling in question rendered the case moot. Neither article I've read gave more of an explanation than that.

Or did they flat out endorse the independent legislature theory?