USA
This article was added by the user . TheWorldNews is not responsible for the content of the platform.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear constituency changes that could have a significant impact on voting rights

(CNN)ThursdaySupreme Courtto hear the dispute over the change of constituency in North Carolina I agreed. It will have a major impact on voting rights across the country and will radically change the outlook for election law.

At the heart of the widespread litigation is the fate of the doctrine that allows state courts to check the actions of state councils. The decision to undermine the court could empower state legislators in disputes over map repartitions and potentially provide more freedom to intervene in federal elections. The decision to hear the case

controls most of the state council and benefits Republicans who have seen the state court overthrow the parliament and the map of the state council.

The so-called "independent state parliament" theory, at the heart of the legal gist, was also promoted by former President Donald Trump's allies as part of an effective bid after the 2020 election. .. It could overturn the will of the voters and replace President Joe Byden's elector with a slate selected by the Trump ally of the state government.

If the theory is accepted by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, critics say that fraudulent legislators are free to act without the restrictions of state courts.

This case will be heard in the next term.

Traditionally, according to Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California Irvine Law School, Congress has set basic rules for conducting elections, either alone or finally. I didn't act in such words. The processes they are currently implementing are also subject to intervention and interpretation by election managers and state courts.

"If the Supreme Court adopts this theory, it would further undermine the rights of voters by neutralizing the state court's ability to protect voters over federal courts," Hasen said. Stated.

The allegations in question were brought to the High Court by Republicans in North Carolina disagreeing with the parliamentary map drawn by state judges in support of the Democratic Party.

The dispute began after North Carolina gained a seat in the House of Representatives, and the North Carolina Parliament adopted the new parliamentary district map twice. However, in both cases, the State Supreme Court rejected the map and finally ordered the 2022 election to proceed with the map drawn by the judge. The court ruled that the map of the General Assembly was equivalent to the party Gerry Mander and violated the provisions of the State Constitution.

"Achieving a party advantage that is not commensurate with the state-wide level of voter support of a party is neither convincing nor legitimate government interest," the majority said. Said.

Republican State Capitol Timothy Moore and State Senator Pro Tempoa Philip Berger's lawyers urgently intervene in the Supreme Court in March to thwart lower court decisions. I requested.

At that time, the court refused to intervene in the dissenting opinions of Judge Samuel Arito, Judge Clarence Thomas, and Judge Neil Gorsuch. Arito wrote for his colleague, but said the case represents "a very important and recurring problem with the Constitution."

"If the wording of the electorate clause is taken seriously, there is some authority of the state court to counter the actions taken by the state council when it provides rules for conducting federal elections. There must be a limit, "written Arito.

Judge Brett Kabanau agreed with his conservative colleagues that the court should ultimately address the issue of the role of the state court. However, he joined the majority in the immediate case and made the map available for future election proceedings.

"This court has repeatedly ruled that federal courts should not normally change the state's election law in the near future," Kabanau wrote.

After being defeated in an urgent application, Cooper's David Thompson&Kirk, a lawyer representing the North Carolina Republicans, returns to court and takes the case to the judge to determine the issue in time. I asked. To influence future elections.

In a court document, he admitted that the 2022 parliamentary elections in North Carolina would take place under the current map, but the court "asked this very important and recurring question. Settled and after 2024, parliamentary elections will be held in a manner consistent with the clear design of the Constitution. "

He said the election clause" regulates the time, place and method of federal elections. It creates power and entrusts it to the "parliament" of each state. " "

" As a matter of state law, limiting the constitutional authority of the parliament or placing it elsewhere in the state's government agencies does not give the state freedom. ".

Preliminary elections for the New York Parliament and the State Senate were pushed back in late August after the State Supreme Court overthrew two sets of maps created by the Democratic Parliament. Earlier this year, we placed a "special master" to create new boundaries.