THe concludes that the Supreme Court's term is important, but the next term could be even more important. I have. On Thursday, the final day of the term, the court granted review of the most potentially significant cases arising from the parliamentary district dispute, but with far more impact.
Moorev. In Harper, Republican supporters challenge the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to invalidate (and replace) the parliamentary district lines drawn by the state's Republicans. It governed the legislature, and its court found that the legislature violated the state's constitutional prohibition of excessive partisanship in district line drawings. This case is important enough in itself, as the US House of Representatives Gerrymandering itself is a big issue. But this case is even more important because of the so-called "Independent State Legislature" (ISL) theory that Republicans use to challenge the North Carolina Supreme Court proceedings. If accepted by the judge, the concept of ISL could be used to seriously undermine the 2024 elections.
ISL theory. Its modern resurrection stems primarily from the remorse of the three simultaneous legislatures in the 2000 (un) famousBush v. Gorejudgment. These legislatures are by the Legislature in regulating federal elections, as the U.S. Constitution refers to the Legislature in relation to the regulation of Congress (Article 1) and President (Article 2) contests. We believe that we are free from the enforcement of state constitutional restrictions.
Read more:Why liberal justice needs to start thinking like a conservative
The version of the supercharged ISL was that Trump supporters such as John Eastmancalledduring the preparatory period until January 6, last year, and the state legislature was either after the presidential election. It suggests that you can decide whether to appoint a slate. The presidential voter preferred by Congress. This version of the theory is almost as ridiculous as the notion that Vice Presidentcan unilaterally decide(was also promoted by Eastman). Article 2 of the Constitution clearly empowers the federal government to prescribe, although not howis chosen, and Congress sets national election days as all hours. I exercised that authority at the time. States often choose voters (even if their identities have to wait for the final tally of election results). Therefore, changes in the voter election process by the state (or federal government officials) after the election date are out of scope.
But even a less extreme version of the ISL being pushed in court has overall power to do what they want, as long as the legislature exercises power before the election day. Having a is incredibly dangerous.
For example, under the ISL, the elected legislature today has no other electorate in the state constitution, the other body of the state government, the governor. Courts, like a North Carolina proceeding. People themselves — you can do it. Or, if the state legislature announces today that it will rule a post-election dispute over who actually won, rather than the election authorities or courts, such arrogance of power is even if it is a provision of the state constitution. Even if it is completely inconsistent with, it will have to be respected. Administrative or judicial review of such election disputes.
Read more:What Ketanji Brown Jackson can bring to the Supreme Court
ISL theory is as wrong as dangerous. Indeed, Articles 1 and 2 of the US Constitution refer to the state's "legislature." Under Article 1, paragraph 4, the "time, place, and manners" for conducting a parliamentary election shall be "specified by the state legislature in each state." Article 2 states that "each state appoints a slate of presidential voters in a manner as directed by the legislature." However, a careful examination of the Constitutional text reveals a lie to ISL. For example, the text of Article 2 (the context of the presidential election in question inBush v. Gore) empowers the "state" rather than the state's "legislature", and the legislature simply "There is a possibility," he added. They "must" or "must" — must be involved in the setting of presidential election rules. More generally, the term "legislature" of "state" (both Articles 1 and 2) is understood without reference to the state constitution that creates, defines, and limits such legislatures. I can not do it. Indeed, for the founding generation, it was widely accepted that the state's "legislature" was an entity created and constrained by the state constitution.
Early practices just before and immediately after the adoption of the Constitution provide a more compelling reason to reject the ISL idea. In general, more than half of the 11 states that ratified the Constitution between 1787 and 1988 had a state constitution that explicitly regulated the state parliament in the context of federal elections in the 1780s and early 1790s. All of these states acted in the exact opposite of ISL theory. In contrast, ISL theorists have not identified strong, concrete evidence from any of the remaining states that the constitutional lawmakers have actively embraced the idea of ISL.
Just as the actions of the founding generation deny ISL, so do the uninterrupted decisions of the Supreme Court from the early 1900s to the present. In the face of the ISL debate, the court upheld the decision to involve both the state constitutional voters (by referendum) and the governor in the creation of the parliamentary district. And in a significant 2015 ruling, where courts (including all conservative judges of the time) doubled in 2019, judges were elected to the constituency obligations of the Arizona Parliament. Completely removed from parliament and replaced by an independent committee. If the elected legislature can relinquish the district power of all legislatures under the state constitution, it is difficult to understand how the relaxation of state constitutional restrictions on the state legislature would be a problem.
Read more:What Trump knew: How the January 6 Commission told the former president
For all of these, ISL supporters have lost the credibility ofsince 2000and bipartisan {74. } In the opinion of Bush v. Gore, I have only the observations of three judges. "Bipartisan" here because it's no coincidence that ISLs are being pushed by Republicans today, even though Democrats, of course, haven't surpassed party gerrymandering. In the 2020 election, seven states with Republican legislatures went to Joe Biden. This suggests a contrast between the district's results and the will of the majority of voters in the state, but the state with the Democratic Parliament was not carried by Donald Trump. )
You will see an intellectual fake ISL that even the conservative members of today's Cool have hope. The 2020 Judge Roberts' writing seems to suggest that he understands it. And Judge Kavanaugh also shows that he is not necessarily participating in the ISL. Indeed, conservative and original if the courts of last month's abortion and gun cases (DobbsandBruen) are serious and want to be taken seriously. The ISL should be completely filled, a precedent for the majority to avoid courts adopting constitutional texts, history, and "terribly wrong" constitutional interpretations. But if the courts don't follow the principles of that methodology, and miss this opportunity to rest the false ISL concept, the 2024 elections can make the 2020s look like a picnic.
Contact usLetters@time.com
