Supreme Court hears high stakes election case

archives

Verified User
”In high-stakes election case, justices will decide validity of “independent state legislature” theory”

“The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday in a case that UCLA law professor Richard Hasen has called the “800-pound gorilla” of election law. The case, Moore v. Harper, is a test of the “independent state legislature” theory – the idea that the Constitution gives state legislatures nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections, with little to no interference from state courts. Depending on whether the justices agree with the theory and how broadly they interpret it, it has the potential to upend federal elections by eliminating virtually all oversight of those elections by state courts.”

“The independent state legislature theory rests on two provisions of the Constitution. The provision directly at issue in Moore, Article I’s elections clause, says that the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Similarly, Article II’s electors clause says that states shall appoint presidential electors for the Electoral College “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

“Proponents of the theory argue that, under the plain text of those two clauses, state courts are not authorized to supervise how state legislatures run elections for Congress or the president. Critics argue that neither clause was ever understood – including at the time of the Founding — to confer such unchecked authority on state legislatures.”

“The Supreme Court has never endorsed the independent state legislature theory in a majority opinion.”

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=4

So, in other words, the State Legislatures can ignore their own State Courts and the State’s own Constitution. All precedent based on prior SCOTUS cases involving the “independent states legislatures” theory have been decided overwhelmingly against the theory

But as we have seen recently, with the Trump Court, especially given the legal/historical brilliance of Thomas and Alito, anything is possible, even State Legislatures ignoring the vote of the citizenry
 
Well, the language is pretty clear and unambiguous.
The most obvious example as to why it's needed is in the case of a winner dying before he can be sworn in.
Thats more significant in an era of early voting. If a guy dies before election day and "wins" anyway, what do you do ?
You let the state legislature decide. They are the representatives of the voting public after all.
 
Back
Top