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

Supreme Court voting experts say it can cause "confusion" in elections

The Supreme Court proceedings deciding to be exercised by thestate parliament in theelections of Congress and the President could have widespread implications for democracy in the United States. Said some voting experts.

The Supreme Court said Thursday that it would take up a North Carolina case focusing on whether the state's Republican-led parliament is the only organization that can set rules for federal elections.

The argument is often referred to as the doctrine of an independent state legislature. This is the legal theory that only state legislators have the authority to set rules for federal elections. Some conservatives have advanced their position in recent years, pointing out the US Constitution's provision that the method of federal elections "must be stipulated by its parliament in each state."

The state court now has the power to intervene if it finds that the election rules of the state legislature violate the state constitution or other laws, and of the party parliament. It has a strong check and balance. Former President Donald Trump's allies made such claims in the 2020 election dispute, and state and federal courts shot them down mostly, butat least four Supreme Court judgesshowed interest.

The Supreme Court can take a wide range of steps in North Carolina proceedings, but experts and voting advocates fully support the court's theory of independent state parliament. Is stated. A conservative majority of six to three can lift restrictions on partisan gerrymandering and unleash changes made by voters, such as ranked voting rights against discrimination seen in the State Constitution and the protection of internal organs. increase.

Such a ruling puts the state's election law and the parliamentary constituency change plan entirely in the hands of the partisan state legislature.

"This is a dangerous concept and, if supported, would disrupt election law," Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, told reporters. The court said it would take up the case. "If it is supported, it will be an extraordinary seize of power by political parties, making it much more difficult or impossible for state courts to support voting and fight gerrymandering. For example, to protect the rights of citizens in our elections. "

This is" the most important case of American democracy, if any. " It could be "one". Vote for access rules and regularly file proceedings to challenge policies that you consider to be discriminatory or oppressive. ps but they choose. The State Supreme Court said the Republican Party "systematically" made it difficult for Democrats to elect members of their choice and banned the Legislature from using its priority map.

"They are basically looking for a blank check to continue the party gerrymandering," Tom Wolfe, deputy director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told reporters after the decision. rice field.

The Supreme Court refused to curb partisan gerrymandering in North Carolinaand other states in a 2019 ruling, but in recent years, especially voters have amended the State Constitution. In the state, state courts intervened. Limit gerrymandering. Using the

ballot initiative, voters have enacted new rules and procedures for constituency changes in states such as Michigan, Ohio, New York, Colorado, Missouri, Florida, and Utah.

For example, in Michigan, an independent civic committee now creates a state constituency change map instead of a state legislator. In New York, this year's court evaded the new constituency change committee and rejected state legislators who tried to establish a map of Gerrymandering.

If the Supreme Court sincerely upholds the doctrine of an independent state parliament, all these committees and procedures may be subject to legal challenges that may unravel power over federal elections. there is.

"The constitutional amendment initiated by voters is one of the few restrictions on the legislature's ability to manipulate processes for its own benefit," said a constitutional expert and professor at New York University. Rick Pildes says. Faculty of Law, University. "And if the doctrine concludes that the legislature has been released from the state constitution, it will remove that check."

In a 2015 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said. We upheld the authority of voters to establish a constituency change committee in Arizona.

However, election expert Rick Hasen seems to have overturned last month's Roe v. Wade and planned parent-child relationship vs. Casey cases due to the dramatic changes in court composition. He said he could decide to overturn his own case. It protected the right to abortion nationwide.

"Most of the majority of judges [in the 2015 Arizona proceedings] are gone. For the four opponents, Judge Roberts is one of his sharpest dissents. Written by the University of California, Irvine.

Voters have implemented a new primary or ranked voting system in Alaska, California, Washington, Maine, or both in the case of Alaska. These can be solved as well.

Experts say there is a narrower interpretation of the doctrine that may be supported. The ruling may limit election managers and elected officials from making decisions that are not clearly explained in the legislation or taking administrative action in an emergency. But, for example, it retains the power of the state constitution and courts.

"I think there is a risk of a decision earthquake, but we shouldn't overreact yet because there is a good legal debate as to why the Supreme Court doesn't do it. I think the road. "

One of these arguments can also be logistic. Experts said supporting this theory would dramatically increase the number of election issues and questions sent to federal court and appealed to the Supreme Court.

"It will put them in a position where they have to oversee all of this," he said. "It takes a lot of time."