▲ 160 ▼ Supreme Court Rejects Right-Wing ‘Theory’ That Would Have Upended American Elections (talkingpointsmemo.com) submitted 3 years ago by Remillard@kbin.social to c/politics@kbin.social 43 comments fedilink hide all child comments The Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory in a bombshell decision Tuesday, turning back a right-wing attempt to vest the sole power in administering federal elections with state legislatures.
[–] slicedcheesegremlin@kbin.social 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) could someone tl;dr what exactly this was, and what it would do? permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago SCOTUS just soundly rejected an idea called "independent state legislature theory" in a case called Moore v. Harper. Here's a good summary of the implications if it had been upheld: "Proponents of the independent state legislature theory reject this traditional reading, insisting that these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections. The result? When it comes to federal elections, legislators would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts couldn’t stop them." https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained permalink fedilink source parent [+] throwing_handles@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aezora@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I could be wrong, but I don't think the decision would have extended to the actual voting rights. At least directly. Like they wouldn't be able to make a law saying that black people can't vote; after all, it's only "time, places and manner", which in no way includes who. But they could make it much, much harder for specific groups of people to vote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago The nightmare scenario was that a highly gerrymandered state legislature could simply ignore the voice of its voters and direct its electors in the Electoral College to vote for a Republican regardless. It is a plausible textualist reading of the Constitution, though obviously very counter to actual practice. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago SCOTUS just soundly rejected an idea called "independent state legislature theory" in a case called Moore v. Harper. Here's a good summary of the implications if it had been upheld: "Proponents of the independent state legislature theory reject this traditional reading, insisting that these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections. The result? When it comes to federal elections, legislators would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts couldn’t stop them." https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained permalink fedilink source parent
[+] throwing_handles@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aezora@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I could be wrong, but I don't think the decision would have extended to the actual voting rights. At least directly. Like they wouldn't be able to make a law saying that black people can't vote; after all, it's only "time, places and manner", which in no way includes who. But they could make it much, much harder for specific groups of people to vote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago The nightmare scenario was that a highly gerrymandered state legislature could simply ignore the voice of its voters and direct its electors in the Electoral College to vote for a Republican regardless. It is a plausible textualist reading of the Constitution, though obviously very counter to actual practice. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aezora@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I could be wrong, but I don't think the decision would have extended to the actual voting rights. At least directly. Like they wouldn't be able to make a law saying that black people can't vote; after all, it's only "time, places and manner", which in no way includes who. But they could make it much, much harder for specific groups of people to vote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago The nightmare scenario was that a highly gerrymandered state legislature could simply ignore the voice of its voters and direct its electors in the Electoral College to vote for a Republican regardless. It is a plausible textualist reading of the Constitution, though obviously very counter to actual practice. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago The nightmare scenario was that a highly gerrymandered state legislature could simply ignore the voice of its voters and direct its electors in the Electoral College to vote for a Republican regardless. It is a plausible textualist reading of the Constitution, though obviously very counter to actual practice. permalink fedilink source parent