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

Supreme Court hearing proceedings on Republican "independent legislature" theory that could radically change elections

The Supreme Court has announced that the Republican "can radically change the election." Trial proceedings on the "Independent Legislature" theory

The case stems from the North Carolina Supreme Court's ruling this year to destroy the Republican map of Gerimander's parliament.

The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on the final day of its term on June 30, 2022 in Washington, DC.

Only the state council has the authority to make decisions about the federal government. Supreme Court Decisions Elections within the limits of federal law can have a dramatic impact on the constituency change process and election process. | Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear discussions in a proceeding that promotes the controversial legal theory of consolidating voting rights in the hands of the state legislature.

Immediately after announcing the final opinion of Thursday's term, the Supreme Court filed a carefully monitored case filed by the Speaker of the Republican Party in North CarolinaMoorev. Announced to pick up Harper. He challenged the state Supreme Court's decision to destroy the parliamentary map of parliament over the party gerrymandering.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in February that a map of the Legislature violated the State Constitutionby illegally supporting Republicans. This map, drawn by Republican lawmakers, may have allowed the party to control 11 of the 14 districts of the state.

However, the Republican legislature has appealed. The state court alleged in has informed the US Supreme Court that it has very limited authority to crack down on the legislature on federal election issues. This is a theory known as the"Independent Legislature" theory.

According to theory, the legislature has almost uncheckable authority to set the procedure for federal elections, and state courts have limited or no ability to arbitrate these laws. .. This theory is based on two constitutional provisions, the voter clause and the election clause, which refer to the legislature but not the judiciary.

Republicans have recently increasingly promoted this theory as a way to circumvent state courts that have invalidated subdivision maps as partisan gerrymanders.

"Some provisions of the Constitution have been the subject of rational debate. is an overview of the courts from the Republican National Committee and other GOP committees earlier this year I read a friend of 74}.

"It is the role of the state's judiciary to have no constitutional mandate," Brief continued. "Despite this omission, certain state and federal courts have undertaken it to optimize the process of belonging to the politically accountable department of government."

State Parliament The Supreme Court's ruling that only has the power to make decisions about federal elections within the limits set by federal law can have a dramatic impact on the constituency change process and election process.

Proceedings by the state legislature may still be subject to objection in federal court, but even state courts and even the governor are under the broadest interpretation of the "independent state legislature" theory. You may be withdrawn.

With 30 legislatures now in the hands of the Republicans, GOP legislative leaders have distorted the map in favor of the party and the Republicans are trying to make changes to the voting process. I am in a strong position.

Four conservative judges, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, have shown openness to at least some versions of the theory.

This theory was also central to President Donald Trump's final unsuccessful attempt to have the state appoint a slate of alternative voters in the 2020 presidential election.

The court may hear discussions in this case late this fall or early next year. The Supreme Court will also hear discussions in October in theMerrill vs. Milligancase.Election lawyers and civil rights groupsare concerned that they could undermine voting rights law.