20 state AGs denounce DEMOCRAT HR 1 as unconstitutional; it won't matter

[Legion]

The Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and imposes alarming mandates.

Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal—and with presidential elections, exclusive—responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections.

The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures.

The Act regulates “election for Federal office,” defined to include “election for the office of President or Vice President.”

The Act therefore implicates the Electors Clause, which expressly affords “Each State” the power to “appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” the state’s allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to “determine the Time of choosing the Electors.”

That exclusive division of power for setting the “manner” and “time” of choosing presidential electors differs markedly from the collocated powers of the Article I Elections Clause, which says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of congressional elections.

That distinction is not an accident of drafting. After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court, in upholding a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district, observed that the Electors Clause “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment of electors. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892).

The exclusivity of state power to “define the method” of choosing presidential electors means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example.


https://content.govdelivery.com/atta...r%20332021.pdf

[Yakuda]

The Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and imposes alarming mandates.

Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal—and with presidential elections, exclusive—responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections.

The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures.

The Act regulates “election for Federal office,” defined to include “election for the office of President or Vice President.”

The Act therefore implicates the Electors Clause, which expressly affords “Each State” the power to “appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” the state’s allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to “determine the Time of choosing the Electors.”

That exclusive division of power for setting the “manner” and “time” of choosing presidential electors differs markedly from the collocated powers of the Article I Elections Clause, which says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of congressional elections.

That distinction is not an accident of drafting. After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court, in upholding a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district, observed that the Electors Clause “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment of electors. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892).

The exclusivity of state power to “define the method” of choosing presidential electors means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example.


https://content.govdelivery.com/atta...r%20332021.pdf

This will hit the supreme court and let's hope the recent limp wristed "conservative" judges will have the back bone to chop it down.

[Legion]

This will hit the supreme court and let's hope the recent limp wristed "conservative" judges will have the back bone to chop it down.

They betrayed us twice already, didn't they?

[Yakuda]

They betrayed us twice already, didn't they?

Yes they did.

[Legion]

The Act’s regulation of congressional elections, including by mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter identification (“ID”) laws, and mandating that states conduct redistricting through unelected commissions, also faces severe constitutional hurdles.

As Chief Justice Roberts noted with respect to congressional elections, the Framers “assign the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress.” Rucho v. Common Cause 139 S.Ct. 2484, 2496 (2019).

Here, Congress is not acting as a check, but is instead overreaching by seizing the role of principal election regulator.

And, under the proportionality doctrine announced in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 532 (1997), no other power bestowed by the Constitution permits Congress to confer voting rights disproportionate to what the Constitution itself already protects, which the Act does by, for example, imposing rights to mail-in voting, curbside voting, etc.

What is more, where the Act requires state officials to carry out new federal rights it violates the principle that the “Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).

[Legion]

Yes they did.

Indeed, so what hope is there that they won't do so again?

[NiftyNiblick]

BLUEEXIT.

Twenty backward states apparently want a different kind of government than the thirty others.
Let them have it as a separate country.

[anatta]

I cant see how SCOTUS could possibly let this stand -but then Roberts is a Weasel, so who knows

[archives]

Ah, last I knew the legislation just passed the House and has next to zero chance of being approved in the Senate, and you wingers are getting your panties in a knot having it already in front of the Supreme Court

Because the Democrats are now the majority, the bill will get a hearing in the Senate and publicly air measures most Americans would approve while bringing attention to the right’s recent efforts to suppress the vote

[Legion]

BLUEEXIT. Twenty backward states apparently want a different kind of government than the thirty others. Let them have it as a separate country.

DEMOCRATS tried that in 1861. It didn't work.

Now, can you address the constitutionality of HR 1, or not, old man?

[Legion]

Ah

Poor Anchovies.

[Matt Dillon]

Something being unConstitutional never stopped corrupt politicians before..

[Legion]

I cant see how SCOTUS could possibly let this stand -but then Roberts is a Weasel, so who knows

As Chief Justice Roberts noted with respect to congressional elections, the Framers “assign the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress.” Rucho v. Common Cause 139 S.Ct. 2484, 2496 (2019).

Here, Congress is not acting as a check, but is instead overreaching by seizing the role of principal election regulator.

[anatta]

As Chief Justice Roberts noted with respect to congressional elections, the Framers “assign the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress.” Rucho v. Common Cause 139 S.Ct. 2484, 2496 (2019).

Here, Congress is not acting as a check, but is instead overreaching by seizing the role of principal election regulator.

nice cite. everything SCREAMS this is unConstituional.but like I said with Roberts the Weasel....

[Legion]

nice cite. everything SCREAMS this is unConstituional.but like I said with Roberts the Weasel....

S1 has to pass the Senate first, with Shamala as the deciding vote if the DEMOCRATS go nuclear to preserve their permanent path to power.