.png){kind=icon}
Administrator- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Posts
- 24,890
- Reaction score
- 13,614
- Points
- 2,755
- Location
- Morganton, N.C.
- Website
- conversations-ii.freeforums.net
(The Guardian) Supreme court decision could have major impacts in fight for Congress
The supreme court could today issue a decision in a case with big implications for how legislative maps are drawn nationwide, potentially impacting the balance of power as Republicans and Democrats vie for control of Congress in the 2024 elections.
The case is Moore v Harper, which comes out of North Carolina and deals with the ability of state courts to strike down congressional maps drawn by their legislatures. Here’s what the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington wrote about the case, when justices heard arguments in December: Republicans from North Carolina who brought the case argue that a provision of the US constitution known as the elections clause gives state lawmakers virtually total control over the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections, including redistricting, and cuts state courts out of the process.
The Republicans are advancing a concept called the “independent state legislature theory”, never before adopted by the supreme court but cited approvingly by four conservative justices.
The direction of questioning at Wednesday’s hearing suggested that three of those conservative justices – Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas – were open to the idea of adopting the theory, despite decades of precedent from their own court dismissing it. They seemed to have the slightly more tentative backing of Brett Kavanaugh, who was part of the legal team in 2000 that assisted George W Bush through Bush v Gore, the case that in modern times put the independent state legislature theory on the map.
On the other side of the argument, the three liberal-leaning justices were profoundly critical of the notion that state legislatures should be given free rein to control federal elections virtually unrestrained by state constitutions and judicial review from state courts. Questions from John Roberts suggested he might be seeking a more narrowly-drawn compromise position.
Which left all eyes on Amy Coney Barrett, the third of Donald Trump’s three appointees. Potentially, she might find herself casting the decisive vote.
Though it gives little clue as to which side of the fence Barrett will be standing on when the ruling comes down, she did ask several probing questions of the lawyer representing North Carolina’s Republicans. She said that those pushing for state legislatures to be freed up from oversight had a “problem” defining their terms, and she questioned whether the theory had any bearing in legal text.
But after that hearing, a twist emerged: the North Carolina supreme court reversed itself in the issue that had been brought before the US supreme court, leading to a split in the parties that brought the case over whether the issue is moot. There’s speculation that the supreme court will end up not ruling on the matter at all, though some court watchers believe that, if they were going to do that, it would have happened already.
It’s a complicated issue that, again, could have major impacts on control of Congress, one of the most important political battles out there. Here’s more from Scotusblog on the late developments in the case: The lawyers involved in a major election law case once again disagreed on Thursday about whether the Supreme Court has the power to reach a decision in the case in light of a ruling last month by the North Carolina Supreme Court in the underlying dispute. Three sets of challengers and the Biden administration, which filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the challengers, urged the justices to dismiss the case. But a group of Republican legislators, who prevailed in the new state supreme court ruling, insisted that the justices should go ahead and decide the case – a view shared by Common Cause, one of the group’s opponents.
In December, the justices heard argument in Moore v. Harper, in which a group of Republican legislators from North Carolina argued that the “independent state legislature theory” – the idea that the Constitution’s elections clause gives state legislatures nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections – barred the North Carolina Supreme Court from setting aside a congressional map adopted by the state’s legislature. But late last month, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed its earlier ruling, holding that it does not have the power to review the challenges to the map at all.
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s April 28 decision prompted the Supreme Court to request additional briefing on the impact of that decision. In a four-page brief filed on Thursday afternoon, the Biden administration told the justices that they should dismiss the case. The Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar explained, granted review to decide whether the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause bars state courts from considering whether the redistricting map enacted by the North Carolina legislature violates the North Carolina constitution. The question, Prelogar continued, comes to the court in the context of the challengers’ claims that the new congressional map adopted by the state legislature violated the state constitution’s ban on partisan gerrymandering. But the North Carolina Supreme Court threw out those claims last month, Prelogar noted, holding that there is no role under the North Carolina constitution for state courts to consider partisan gerrymandering claims. Therefore, Prelogar reasoned, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the “independent state legislature” theory would have no effect on the challengers’ claims.
The supreme court could today issue a decision in a case with big implications for how legislative maps are drawn nationwide, potentially impacting the balance of power as Republicans and Democrats vie for control of Congress in the 2024 elections.
The case is Moore v Harper, which comes out of North Carolina and deals with the ability of state courts to strike down congressional maps drawn by their legislatures. Here’s what the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington wrote about the case, when justices heard arguments in December: Republicans from North Carolina who brought the case argue that a provision of the US constitution known as the elections clause gives state lawmakers virtually total control over the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections, including redistricting, and cuts state courts out of the process.
The Republicans are advancing a concept called the “independent state legislature theory”, never before adopted by the supreme court but cited approvingly by four conservative justices.
The direction of questioning at Wednesday’s hearing suggested that three of those conservative justices – Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas – were open to the idea of adopting the theory, despite decades of precedent from their own court dismissing it. They seemed to have the slightly more tentative backing of Brett Kavanaugh, who was part of the legal team in 2000 that assisted George W Bush through Bush v Gore, the case that in modern times put the independent state legislature theory on the map.
On the other side of the argument, the three liberal-leaning justices were profoundly critical of the notion that state legislatures should be given free rein to control federal elections virtually unrestrained by state constitutions and judicial review from state courts. Questions from John Roberts suggested he might be seeking a more narrowly-drawn compromise position.
Which left all eyes on Amy Coney Barrett, the third of Donald Trump’s three appointees. Potentially, she might find herself casting the decisive vote.
Though it gives little clue as to which side of the fence Barrett will be standing on when the ruling comes down, she did ask several probing questions of the lawyer representing North Carolina’s Republicans. She said that those pushing for state legislatures to be freed up from oversight had a “problem” defining their terms, and she questioned whether the theory had any bearing in legal text.
But after that hearing, a twist emerged: the North Carolina supreme court reversed itself in the issue that had been brought before the US supreme court, leading to a split in the parties that brought the case over whether the issue is moot. There’s speculation that the supreme court will end up not ruling on the matter at all, though some court watchers believe that, if they were going to do that, it would have happened already.
It’s a complicated issue that, again, could have major impacts on control of Congress, one of the most important political battles out there. Here’s more from Scotusblog on the late developments in the case: The lawyers involved in a major election law case once again disagreed on Thursday about whether the Supreme Court has the power to reach a decision in the case in light of a ruling last month by the North Carolina Supreme Court in the underlying dispute. Three sets of challengers and the Biden administration, which filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the challengers, urged the justices to dismiss the case. But a group of Republican legislators, who prevailed in the new state supreme court ruling, insisted that the justices should go ahead and decide the case – a view shared by Common Cause, one of the group’s opponents.
In December, the justices heard argument in Moore v. Harper, in which a group of Republican legislators from North Carolina argued that the “independent state legislature theory” – the idea that the Constitution’s elections clause gives state legislatures nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections – barred the North Carolina Supreme Court from setting aside a congressional map adopted by the state’s legislature. But late last month, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed its earlier ruling, holding that it does not have the power to review the challenges to the map at all.
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s April 28 decision prompted the Supreme Court to request additional briefing on the impact of that decision. In a four-page brief filed on Thursday afternoon, the Biden administration told the justices that they should dismiss the case. The Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar explained, granted review to decide whether the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause bars state courts from considering whether the redistricting map enacted by the North Carolina legislature violates the North Carolina constitution. The question, Prelogar continued, comes to the court in the context of the challengers’ claims that the new congressional map adopted by the state legislature violated the state constitution’s ban on partisan gerrymandering. But the North Carolina Supreme Court threw out those claims last month, Prelogar noted, holding that there is no role under the North Carolina constitution for state courts to consider partisan gerrymandering claims. Therefore, Prelogar reasoned, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the “independent state legislature” theory would have no effect on the challengers’ claims.
