It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

News and events of the day
Post Reply
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by Libertas »

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/11076487 ... ure-theory


But Hillary wasnt perfect so I am going to bad mouth her. :twisted:


A Supreme Court endorsement of the theory could upend elections laws across the U.S.
The high court declined in March to weigh in on an emergency request for this case, but in a dissenting opinion, three of the court's conservatives – Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas – signaled they would likely side with the Republican lawmakers' embrace of this theory.

Many legal scholars, however, have been waving warning signs that the high court's endorsement of the theory could have severe consequences across the country for congressional and presidential elections.

"It would be extremely disruptive," says Carolyn Shapiro, a law professor and founder and co-director of Chicago-Kent College of Law's Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States. "It would allow the possibility that people who don't like state supreme court rulings that have been on the books potentially for years could step back in and say, 'Well, actually, that ruling only applies to state elections.' "
As someone at DU said, when this happens, not if, someone like trump wont need a coup.


https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/15 ... 9qw_f2Jvaw
My new one
@Slate
: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... heory.html
Last edited by Libertas on Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I sigh in your general direction.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by Libertas »

This is the most important case of all, everything is over when they do this.

One could argue when they stripped EPA of their regulatory abilities today, that is the most important.

Both will kill us, global warming and rightwingers including the ones on this board. :twisted:

And almost NOBODY who votes will hear about this.

Legal expert on MSNBC just now called it "Bone Chilling" that THIS court would hear this case.
I sigh in your general direction.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by ProfX »

It is a bit weird to see one claim that states are free to ignore their judicial branches and constitutions as supporting the rule of law. I don't see any basis whatsoever for this "independent state legislature" theory.

Election Law Experts Sound the Alarm About ‘Extremely Dangerous’ Voting Rights Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/e ... d-to-hear/

That was a theory openly pushed by pro-Trump attorneys like John Eastman in seeking to overturn President Joe Biden’s victories in key states like Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Indeed, Eastman’s six-page plan to overturn Donald Trump’s defeat, sometimes described as the “coup memo,” started with that proposition.

James A. Gardner, a professor and election law scholar at the University at Buffalo School of Law, told Law&Crime that proponents of the independent state legislature theory go even further than that—vesting state legislatures with the “exclusive” power.

“It is thus an unchecked institution,” Gardner noted.

[snip]

In 2020, at least four justices on the Supreme Court’s right flank appeared to embrace the independent state legislature theory: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in a pair of statements on the emergency docket.

Joshua Douglas, an election law professor at University of Kentucky, told Law&Crime that Moore v. Harper is an “extremely dangerous case in that it could take away state constitutional limits on state legislatures when they enact restrictive voting rules.”

“Already, U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the right to vote is unduly narrow,” Douglas wrote in an email. “Advocates have rightly gone to state courts, seeking to use the broader protection of voting in state constitutions to protect voters. This doctrine would gut that state-level protection by saying that state legislatures are essentially free actors when enacting election rules for federal elections.”

Gardner, the University at Buffalo School of Law professor, put it more bluntly.

“It could mean that there are now four votes in support of the independent state legislature doctrine,” Gardner told Law&Crime. “More broadly, it is an opportunity for a court that has now openly abandoned its commitment to liberal democracy to improve the odds that the Republican Party, a minoritarian, illiberal, and authoritarian party, to seize power.”

[snip][end]
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by ProfX »

There are some problems with the independent state legislature doctrine.

The ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,’ Explained
This dubious legal theory could have dramatic consequences for elections.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... -explained

There’s a thread that links the partisan gerry­man­der­ing of congres­sional maps in North Caro­lina, attempts to dissolve the Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Commis­sion, and efforts to over­throw the 2020 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion in Pennsylvania and else­where. In each case, the parti­cipants have invoked a dubi­ous inter­pret­a­tion of the Consti­tu­tion called the “inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory.”

[snip]

The dispute hinges on how to under­stand the word “legis­lature.” The long-running under­stand­ing is that it refers to each state’s general lawmak­ing processes, includ­ing all the normal proced­ures and limit­a­tions. So if a state consti­tu­tion subjects legis­la­tion to being blocked by a governor’s veto or citizen refer­en­dum, elec­tion laws can be blocked via the same means. And state courts must ensure that laws for federal elec­tions, like all laws, comply with their state consti­tu­tions.

Proponents of the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory reject this tradi­tional read­ing, insist­ing that these clauses give state legis­latures exclus­ive and near-abso­lute power to regu­late federal elec­tions. The result? When it comes to federal elec­tions, legis­lat­ors would be free to viol­ate the state consti­tu­tion and state courts could­n’t stop them.

Extreme versions of the theory would block legis­latures from deleg­at­ing their author­ity to offi­cials like governors, secret­ar­ies of state, or elec­tion commis­sion­ers, who currently play import­ant roles in admin­is­ter­ing elec­tions.

[snip]

Follow­ing the disputed 2000 elec­tion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a concur­ring opin­ion in Bush v. Gore propos­ing an embryonic version of the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory. He argued that the Consti­tu­tion’s assign­ment of elec­tions author­ity to state legis­latures dimin­ishes state judges’ power to alter “the general coher­ence of the legis­lat­ive scheme.” This approach garnered little scru­tiny outside academia at the time.

Fifteen years later, the idea was exhumed as part of an effort to dismantle Arizon­a’s inde­pend­ent redis­trict­ing commis­sion. Again, the Supreme Court rejec­ted the theory and let the commis­sion continue its work.

Then, after the 2020 elec­tion, Pres­id­ent Trump and his allies used the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory as part of their effort to over­turn the results. For a third time, the Supreme Court declined to adopt the theory. But three sitting justices — Clar­ence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch —endorsed it.

[snip]

Proponents of the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory emphas­ize a narrow read­ing of the word “legis­lature” in the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses. They also point to a couple of Supreme Court cases from the early 20th century ruling that state consti­tu­tions could not take away state legis­latures’ power to ratify federal consti­tu­tional amend­ments under Article V of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion. Adher­ents argue that the same logic must apply to the Elec­tions and Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clauses, even though the Supreme Court has made clear that the rati­fic­a­tion of consti­tu­tional amend­ments under Article V is distinct from the ordin­ary lawmak­ing process used in elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion.

Crit­ics point out several flaws in the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory and its justi­fic­a­tions. First, the framers did not trust state legis­latures to run fair elec­tions. They empowered state legis­latures to admin­is­ter federal elec­tions only with great hesit­ancy.

“What led to the appoint­ment of this Conven­tion?” John F. Mercer of Mary­land rhet­or­ic­ally asked his fellow deleg­ates to the 1787 Consti­tu­tional Conven­tion. “The corrup­tion & mutab­il­ity of the Legis­lat­ive Coun­cils of the States.” James Madison, simil­arly suspi­cious of the legis­latures, prepared for the conven­tion by compil­ing a list of ways state legis­lat­ors had failed to act in the national interest.

This mistrust comes through in the Elec­tions Clause, which reserves to Congress the power to over­ride the abuses of power that Madison and his colleagues expec­ted. Given the low regard in which the framers held state legis­latures, it’s diffi­cult to imagine they would want to free those lawmak­ing bodies from the exist­ing constraints of the gubernat­orial veto, the state consti­tu­tion, and judi­cial review.

There is further histor­ical evid­ence against the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory. During the found­ing era, most state consti­tu­tions regu­lated federal elec­tions and most state legis­latures shared their elec­tions power with other state actors. These prac­tices, which are incon­sist­ent with the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory, were uncon­tro­ver­sial at the time.

Crit­ics also reject the theory’s narrow approach to the Consti­tu­tion’s text. They point out that the term “legis­lature” does­n’t neces­sar­ily mean “exclus­ively the legis­lature.” The First Amend­ment, to draw a paral­lel, liter­ally prohib­its only “Congress” from discrim­in­at­ing on the basis of speech and reli­gion. But we under­stand the amend­ment to apply to the federal govern­ment in its entirety, includ­ing the judi­cial and exec­ut­ive branches. That’s why, to take one example, a judge can’t close off her courtroom to athe­ists.

[snip][end]

It seems narrow and strict readings appeal to narrow and fundamentalist minds.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
bird
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by bird »

ProfX wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:53 am There are some problems with the independent state legislature doctrine.

The ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,’ Explained
This dubious legal theory could have dramatic consequences for elections.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... -explained

There’s a thread that links the partisan gerry­man­der­ing of congres­sional maps in North Caro­lina, attempts to dissolve the Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Commis­sion, and efforts to over­throw the 2020 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion in Pennsylvania and else­where. In each case, the parti­cipants have invoked a dubi­ous inter­pret­a­tion of the Consti­tu­tion called the “inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory.”

[snip]

The dispute hinges on how to under­stand the word “legis­lature.” The long-running under­stand­ing is that it refers to each state’s general lawmak­ing processes, includ­ing all the normal proced­ures and limit­a­tions. So if a state consti­tu­tion subjects legis­la­tion to being blocked by a governor’s veto or citizen refer­en­dum, elec­tion laws can be blocked via the same means. And state courts must ensure that laws for federal elec­tions, like all laws, comply with their state consti­tu­tions.

Proponents of the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory reject this tradi­tional read­ing, insist­ing that these clauses give state legis­latures exclus­ive and near-abso­lute power to regu­late federal elec­tions. The result? When it comes to federal elec­tions, legis­lat­ors would be free to viol­ate the state consti­tu­tion and state courts could­n’t stop them.

Extreme versions of the theory would block legis­latures from deleg­at­ing their author­ity to offi­cials like governors, secret­ar­ies of state, or elec­tion commis­sion­ers, who currently play import­ant roles in admin­is­ter­ing elec­tions.

[snip]

Follow­ing the disputed 2000 elec­tion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a concur­ring opin­ion in Bush v. Gore propos­ing an embryonic version of the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory. He argued that the Consti­tu­tion’s assign­ment of elec­tions author­ity to state legis­latures dimin­ishes state judges’ power to alter “the general coher­ence of the legis­lat­ive scheme.” This approach garnered little scru­tiny outside academia at the time.

Fifteen years later, the idea was exhumed as part of an effort to dismantle Arizon­a’s inde­pend­ent redis­trict­ing commis­sion. Again, the Supreme Court rejec­ted the theory and let the commis­sion continue its work.

Then, after the 2020 elec­tion, Pres­id­ent Trump and his allies used the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory as part of their effort to over­turn the results. For a third time, the Supreme Court declined to adopt the theory. But three sitting justices — Clar­ence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch —endorsed it.

[snip]

Proponents of the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory emphas­ize a narrow read­ing of the word “legis­lature” in the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses. They also point to a couple of Supreme Court cases from the early 20th century ruling that state consti­tu­tions could not take away state legis­latures’ power to ratify federal consti­tu­tional amend­ments under Article V of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion. Adher­ents argue that the same logic must apply to the Elec­tions and Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clauses, even though the Supreme Court has made clear that the rati­fic­a­tion of consti­tu­tional amend­ments under Article V is distinct from the ordin­ary lawmak­ing process used in elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion.

Crit­ics point out several flaws in the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory and its justi­fic­a­tions. First, the framers did not trust state legis­latures to run fair elec­tions. They empowered state legis­latures to admin­is­ter federal elec­tions only with great hesit­ancy.

“What led to the appoint­ment of this Conven­tion?” John F. Mercer of Mary­land rhet­or­ic­ally asked his fellow deleg­ates to the 1787 Consti­tu­tional Conven­tion. “The corrup­tion & mutab­il­ity of the Legis­lat­ive Coun­cils of the States.” James Madison, simil­arly suspi­cious of the legis­latures, prepared for the conven­tion by compil­ing a list of ways state legis­lat­ors had failed to act in the national interest.

This mistrust comes through in the Elec­tions Clause, which reserves to Congress the power to over­ride the abuses of power that Madison and his colleagues expec­ted. Given the low regard in which the framers held state legis­latures, it’s diffi­cult to imagine they would want to free those lawmak­ing bodies from the exist­ing constraints of the gubernat­orial veto, the state consti­tu­tion, and judi­cial review.

There is further histor­ical evid­ence against the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory. During the found­ing era, most state consti­tu­tions regu­lated federal elec­tions and most state legis­latures shared their elec­tions power with other state actors. These prac­tices, which are incon­sist­ent with the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory, were uncon­tro­ver­sial at the time.

Crit­ics also reject the theory’s narrow approach to the Consti­tu­tion’s text. They point out that the term “legis­lature” does­n’t neces­sar­ily mean “exclus­ively the legis­lature.” The First Amend­ment, to draw a paral­lel, liter­ally prohib­its only “Congress” from discrim­in­at­ing on the basis of speech and reli­gion. But we under­stand the amend­ment to apply to the federal govern­ment in its entirety, includ­ing the judi­cial and exec­ut­ive branches. That’s why, to take one example, a judge can’t close off her courtroom to athe­ists.

[snip][end]

It seems narrow and strict readings appeal to narrow and fundamentalist minds.
I don’t have a lot of faith in the meth labs of democracy.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by Bludogdem »

Article I Legislative Branch

Section 4 Congress
Clause 1 Elections Clause
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.


So we have six originalist/textualist justices. And a rather distinct and unambiguous designation to the Legislature of the State. Not the state constitution, not the state court.

As to the historical narrative for article 1 section 4 they are going to look to Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 59.

“ It will not be alledged that an election law could have been framed and inserted into the Constitution, which would have been always applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country; and it will therefore not be denied that a discretionary power over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I presume, be as readily conceded, that there were only three ways, in which this power could have been reasonably modified and disposed, that it must either have been lodged wholly in the National Legislature, or wholly in the State Legislatures, or primarily in the latter, and ultimately in the former. The last mode has with reason been preferred by the Convention. They have submitted the regulation of elections for the Foederal Government in the first instance to the local administrations; which in ordinary cases, and when no improper views prevail, may be both more convenient and more satisfactory; but they have reserved to the national authority a right to interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.”

So, while there are legitimate concerns the founders have supplied a proper course of correction. Congress. A safety valve as it were. And the Six will quickly illuminate that responsibility and power. It belongs to Congress. Not the state constitution, not the state courts.

In addition:

“ The extravagant surmises of a distempered jealousy can never be dignified with that character. If we are in a humour to presume abuses of power, it is as fair to presume them on the part of the State Governments, as on the part of the General Government. And as it is more consonant to the rules of a just theory to intrust the Union with the care of its own existence, than to transfer that care to any other hands; if abuses of power are to be hazarded, on the one side, or on the other, it is more rational to hazard them where the power would naturally be placed, than where it would unnaturally be placed.”

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founder ... _1s13.html


The framers didn’t trust state government in whole. The state constitution or the state courts anymore than the state legislature.

So 6-3 on the unambiguous designation to state legislature with an admonition that Congress is entrusted with the power to determine the need for adjustment.

Only the State Legislature and Congress are designated to determine article 1 section 4 execution. Not state constitution, not state courts.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by ProfX »

The idea that state legislatures should be unaccountable to their state constitutions and courts is an extremist, fringe idea.

One is entitled to their opinion. I am entitled to point out the flaws with it.

The Constitutional Law Theory That Could Upend American Elections
https://www.democracydocket.com/news/th ... elections/

The ISL theory interprets the word “legislature” in both of these clauses to mean that the state legislature — and only the state legislature — can make the laws regulating federal elections. This differs from the standard interpretation, in which “legislature” means the state’s general lawmaking process. This includes the governor’s veto, citizen-led ballot measures and rulings of state courts. By excluding all other parts of the state government, the theory would allow the state legislature to set election rules and congressional maps unchecked — not by the governor, the courts, the people or even the state constitution itself.

[snip]

Image

It’s unsupported by recent precedent and contrary to the historical record.

Despite the support the theory has garnered from some Supreme Court justices, the Court as a whole has never endorsed it. In 2015, a majority of the Court explicitly rejected the theory in Arizona State Legislature by upholding the state’s redistricting commission. In 2019’s Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court held that partisan gerrymandering is beyond the reach of the federal courts. At the same time, Chief Justice Roberts endorsed the ability of state constitutions to constrain partisan gerrymandering and wrote approvingly of ballot measures creating independent redistricting commissions in Colorado and Michigan, an implicit rejection of his dissent in Arizona State Legislature four years earlier. It would then be a major reversal of recent precedent for the Court to adopt the ISL theory.

A wealth of recent legal scholarship also casts doubt on its validity. One law review article points out that the Elections Clause was intended to limit — not empower — state legislatures because the founding fathers were worried that state legislators could try to meddle in the electoral process. To suggest the same clause blocks state constitutions and courts from restraining legislatures would be in diametric opposition to the framers’ intention. Another scholarly paper illustrates that the original, public meaning of the word “legislature” in the U.S. Constitution isn’t the standard dictionary definition but includes the powers, processes and constraints in state constitutions. As such, under the U.S. Constitution state legislatures don’t in fact have free rein to do as they please.

[snip][end]
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by ProfX »

Six votes?

The Danger of the Independent State Legislature Theory
https://www.fairvote.org/the_danger_of_ ... ure_theory

Kavanaugh did not join the original dissent of Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Only indicated the matter should be addressed by the court.
No one really knows where Barrett would vote ... yet.

As for Chief Justice Roberts, [from the above]
Roberts may not be willing to go as far as the North Carolina legislature may wish however: in his 2019 majority opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause the Chief Justice wrote, with respect to elections for federal office, “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.” This suggests that Roberts would retain a role for state courts in deciding whether state legislatures do, in fact, follow the law in the context of elections for federal office.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:13 pm Six votes?

The Danger of the Independent State Legislature Theory
https://www.fairvote.org/the_danger_of_ ... ure_theory

Kavanaugh did not join the original dissent of Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Only indicated the matter should be addressed by the court.
No one really knows where Barrett would vote ... yet.

As for Chief Justice Roberts, [from the above]
Roberts may not be willing to go as far as the North Carolina legislature may wish however: in his 2019 majority opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause the Chief Justice wrote, with respect to elections for federal office, “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.” This suggests that Roberts would retain a role for state courts in deciding whether state legislatures do, in fact, follow the law in the context of elections for federal office.
Here’s the complete statement from Rucho.

“ Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply. (We do not understand how the dissent can main- tain that a provision saying that no districting plan “shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party” provides little guidance on the question. See post, at 31, n. 6.) Indeed, numerous other States are restricting partisan considerations in districting through legislation. One way they are doing so is by placing power to draw electoral districts in the hands of independent commis- sions. For example, in November 2018, voters in Colorado and Michigan approved constitutional amendments creat- ing multimember commissions that will be responsible in whole or in part for creating and approving district maps for congressional and state legislative districts. See Colo. Const., Art. V, §§44, 46; Mich. Const., Art. IV, §6. Mis- souri is trying a different tack. Voters there overwhelm- ingly approved the creation of a new position—state de- mographer—to draw state legislative district lines. Mo. Const., Art. III, §3.
Other States have mandated at least some of the tradi- tional districting criteria for their mapmakers. Some have outright prohibited partisan favoritism in redistricting. See Fla. Const., Art. III, §20(a) (“No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”); Mo. Const., Art. III, §3 (“Districts shall be designed in a man- ner that achieves both partisan fairness and, secondarily, competitiveness. ‘Partisan fairness’ means that parties shall be able to translate their popular support into legis- lative representation with approximately equal efficiency.”); Iowa Code §42.4(5) (2016) (“No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legis- lator or member of Congress, or other person or group.”); Del. Code Ann., Tit. xxix, §804 (2017) (providing that in determining district boundaries for the state legislature, no district shall “be created so as to unduly favor any person or political party”).
As noted, the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections. Clause. The first bill introduced in the 116th Congress would require States to create 15-member independent commissions to draw congressional districts and would establish certain redistricting criteria, including protec- tion for communities of interest, and ban partisan gerry- mandering. H. R. 1, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., §§2401, 2411 (2019).
Dozens of other bills have been introduced to limit reliance on political considerations in redistricting. In 2010, H. R. 6250 would have required States to follow standards of compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions in redistricting. It also would have prohibited the establishment of congressional districts “with the major purpose of diluting the voting strength of any person, or group, including any political party,” except when necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. H. R. 6250, 111th Cong., 2d Sess., §2 (referred to committee).
Another example is the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, which was introduced in 2005 and has been reintroduced in every Congress since. That bill would require every State to establish an independent commission to adopt redistricting plans. The bill also set forth criteria for the independent commissions to use, such as compactness, contiguity, and population equality. It would prohibit consideration of voting history, political party affiliation, or incumbent Representative’s residence. H.R. 2642, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., §4 (referred to subcommittee).
We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.”

It’s simply a list of all sorts of approaches to the problem. No endorsement, no acceptance, no conclusion.

Of particular note he ends with “ We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.”


Now I suggest you read Chief Justice Roberts blistering dissent in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. It’s pretty clear where he’ll be.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 4_3ea4.pdf
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:28 pm The idea that state legislatures should be unaccountable to their state constitutions and courts is an extremist, fringe idea.

One is entitled to their opinion. I am entitled to point out the flaws with it.

The Constitutional Law Theory That Could Upend American Elections
https://www.democracydocket.com/news/th ... elections/

The ISL theory interprets the word “legislature” in both of these clauses to mean that the state legislature — and only the state legislature — can make the laws regulating federal elections. This differs from the standard interpretation, in which “legislature” means the state’s general lawmaking process. This includes the governor’s veto, citizen-led ballot measures and rulings of state courts. By excluding all other parts of the state government, the theory would allow the state legislature to set election rules and congressional maps unchecked — not by the governor, the courts, the people or even the state constitution itself.

[snip]

Image

It’s unsupported by recent precedent and contrary to the historical record.

Despite the support the theory has garnered from some Supreme Court justices, the Court as a whole has never endorsed it. In 2015, a majority of the Court explicitly rejected the theory in Arizona State Legislature by upholding the state’s redistricting commission. In 2019’s Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court held that partisan gerrymandering is beyond the reach of the federal courts. At the same time, Chief Justice Roberts endorsed the ability of state constitutions to constrain partisan gerrymandering and wrote approvingly of ballot measures creating independent redistricting commissions in Colorado and Michigan, an implicit rejection of his dissent in Arizona State Legislature four years earlier. It would then be a major reversal of recent precedent for the Court to adopt the ISL theory.

A wealth of recent legal scholarship also casts doubt on its validity. One law review article points out that the Elections Clause was intended to limit — not empower — state legislatures because the founding fathers were worried that state legislators could try to meddle in the electoral process. To suggest the same clause blocks state constitutions and courts from restraining legislatures would be in diametric opposition to the framers’ intention. Another scholarly paper illustrates that the original, public meaning of the word “legislature” in the U.S. Constitution isn’t the standard dictionary definition but includes the powers, processes and constraints in state constitutions. As such, under the U.S. Constitution state legislatures don’t in fact have free rein to do as they please.

[snip][end]
It isn’t fringe in application to the singular concern in question - article 1 section 4.

Roberts isn’t buying the above legislature crap. Again read the dissent.
Glennfs
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by Glennfs »

Every link an opinion piece, I personally endorse using fact based opinion pieces as links and am glad to see that finally everyone here now agrees with me.
As for the topic at hand on one hand I believe that we should have one standard for every state for all federal elections. Especially in regards to the ballot, early voting which is out of control and ridiculous and absentee or voting by mail. Odd, how most on the left want no standards on those voting issues. But, want strict standards on the issue of this scotus case.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by ProfX »

OK time to take a break from the Blue Light of Determinism.
Glennfs wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:09 am Every link an opinion piece, I personally endorse using fact based opinion pieces as links and am glad to see that finally everyone here now agrees with me.
I think you still don't get the point ... in an opinion piece, it's the quality of the factual assertions, the validity of the argument, and the credibility of the author that matter.

After all, the Federalist Papers are Alexander Hamilton's opinions. :D

The world is built on opinions. Every time you board a plane, you are banking on its engineers' opinion it's safe to fly. Most people, I hope, in turn, believe that opinion is built on sound facts. It's rare, but people will pay when they aren't, ... the ultimate price.
As for the topic at hand on one hand I believe that we should have one standard for every state for all federal elections.
I don't know what that means. "Standards" in regard to what? I do believe there should be a universal standard of the Feds putting an end to voter suppression, caging, etc. In general, my north star is expanding the franchise, not reducing it.
Especially in regards to the ballot, early voting which is out of control and ridiculous and absentee or voting by mail. Odd, how most on the left want no standards on those voting issues. But, want strict standards on the issue of this scotus case.
I don't know how early voting is "out of control". You keep saying that, but don't explain what you mean.

As for voting by mail, said last time, 5 states pretty much already conduct all their elections totally through vote by mail, and I think it would be best for states to emulate their practices.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Glennfs
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by Glennfs »

ProfX wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:38 am OK time to take a break from the Blue Light of Determinism.



I think you still don't get the point ... in an opinion piece, it's the quality of the factual assertions, the validity of the argument, and the credibility of the author that matter.

After all, the Federalist Papers are Alexander Hamilton's opinions. :D

The world is built on opinions. Every time you board a plane, you are banking on its engineers' opinion it's safe to fly. Most people, I hope, in turn, believe that opinion is built on sound facts. It's rare, but people will pay when they aren't, ... the ultimate price.



I don't know what that means. "Standards" in regard to what? I do believe there should be a universal standard of the Feds putting an end to voter suppression, caging, etc. In general, my north star is expanding the franchise, not reducing it.


https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... tions.aspx


I don't know how early voting is "out of control". You keep saying that, but don't explain what you mean.

As for voting by mail, said last time, 5 states pretty much already conduct all their elections totally through vote by mail, and I think it would be best for states to emulate their practices.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... tions.aspx

According to this is some states it is over 7 weeks
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
bird
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by bird »

ProfX wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:38 am OK time to take a break from the Blue Light of Determinism.



I think you still don't get the point ... in an opinion piece, it's the quality of the factual assertions, the validity of the argument, and the credibility of the author that matter.

After all, the Federalist Papers are Alexander Hamilton's opinions. :D

The world is built on opinions. Every time you board a plane, you are banking on its engineers' opinion it's safe to fly. Most people, I hope, in turn, believe that opinion is built on sound facts. It's rare, but people will pay when they aren't, ... the ultimate price.



I don't know what that means. "Standards" in regard to what? I do believe there should be a universal standard of the Feds putting an end to voter suppression, caging, etc. In general, my north star is expanding the franchise, not reducing it.



I don't know how early voting is "out of control". You keep saying that, but don't explain what you mean.

As for voting by mail, said last time, 5 states pretty much already conduct all their elections totally through vote by mail, and I think it would be best for states to emulate their practices.
Don’t forget that rural voters tend to have more mail in voting. How odd that conservative politicians seeking to restrict voting seem to hate their rural voters.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by ProfX »

Glennfs wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:54 am According to this is some states it is over 7 weeks
Your source says up to 46 days. I don't know which states those are.

If their voters feel that's excessive, I recommend they contact their board of elections. I admit that can get expensive.

The average they say is around 23 days, which seems closer to my own state, and more reasonable, generally.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Glennfs
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by Glennfs »

ProfX wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:52 pm Your source says up to 46 days. I don't know which states those are.

If their voters feel that's excessive, I recommend they contact their board of elections. I admit that can get expensive.

The average they say is around 23 days, which seems closer to my own state, and more reasonable, generally.
46 or 146 not one progressive here would have a problem with the number
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by ProfX »

I admit on the list of things that keep me up at night angry and upset, it's not states that have too many days of early voting.

Yeah. You let me know what problem I'm supposed to have with it.

I personally think forcing people to vote on one and only one day out of the year, especially when it's a work day for most working people (Tuesday), especially when they have to wait on extremely long lines in the evening in order to vote, is ... bad. Early voting is a nice relief valve for overcrowded polling places.

I think giving people half a year would be a bit excessive, yeah. Since you asked. I mean, I get, one issue is things can change in between when you cast your early vote and the actual election day. I don't know how many of those things happen 2 weeks right before the election.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
Toonces
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:52 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by Toonces »

From my perspective, the 'left' wants as many people to vote as possible.

That should be everyone's position. You get a much better democracy, a better government when more people participate.

Now, I realize that the more people who vote the better it is for Democrats but that isn't the fault of the voting, it's an outcome given the choices available. If your party does poorly if more people vote, then maybe that should be a hint.

You absolutely should have standardized voting but you're not going to get it since the states run their own elections.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by carmenjonze »

bird wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 11:06 am Don’t forget that rural voters tend to have more mail in voting. How odd that conservative politicians seeking to restrict voting seem to hate their rural voters.
Not that odd.

A lot of those voters are Native, Latino, Asian, low-income white, and Black.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
bird
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

Post by bird »

carmenjonze wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:44 pm Not that odd.

A lot of those voters are Native, Latino, Asian, low-income white, and Black.
Yeah, suppressors gotta suppress.

Iirc, Luntz admitted that Republicans should not want people voting.
Post Reply