Judicial Oversight of US Elections: On Wednesday, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready to limit judicial power to overrule voting policies crafted by state politicians. However, the court may not go as far as Republican North Carolina lawmakers would like in a case the liberal justices have painted as a threat to American democratic norms.
State lawmakers used this case to try to convince the justices to back a controversial legal theory that is gaining favour in conservative legal circles, which would bar state courts from examining the validity of measures by state legislatures governing federal elections.
Lawmakers on the Republican side are appealing the judgement of the highest court in North Carolina to strike down the map they created for the state’s 14 congressional districts because it was unconstitutionally prejudiced against Democratic voters.
Judicial Oversight of US Elections
After that, a different state court replaced it with a map created by a panel of specialists from both political parties. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court, including Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, have a 6-3 majority and have shown signs of supporting the “independent state legislative” doctrine put out by the Republican lawmakers.
Although the conservative justices’ questions showed scepticism toward the state court actions, some suggested that the Republican argument that state constitutions cannot restrain the power of legislators in adopting rules for congressional and presidential elections would go too far.
Republicans want to throw out decades of precedent and give state legislatures free rein to tamper with election laws without any checks from governors or state courts. This is a dangerous threat to our democracy.https://t.co/QVNoOnXVLq
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) December 7, 2022
The lawmakers are advocating for a once-fringe legal theory that claims the state legislatures, and not other bodies like state courts, have jurisdiction over election procedures and electoral district boundaries under the U.S. Constitution.
Read More:
- Elon Musk Lost the Crown of the Richest Person, Now Who is Number One?
- California Considering Sanctions for Large Profits Made by Oil Firms
Liberal justices on the court speculated that the concept could allow state legislatures to impose arbitrary limitations on voters. The attorneys who argued against it also claimed that having different voting standards for state and federal contests would create chaos.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan criticised the proposal, saying, “This is a proposal that takes rid of the typical checks and balances on the way significant governmental decisions are made in this nation.”
Thanks to @jbouie for the shout-out to this week’s issue of “One First” in today’s @nytimes op-ed — which looks at the problems with how much earlier in the typical case #SCOTUS is hearing appeals.
Jamelle’s piece: https://t.co/PmzpshqHAZ
My newsletter: https://t.co/jcJjJuKbED
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 7, 2022
And you could assume it eliminates all those checks and balances just when they are most essential. The issue of voting rights has polarised Americans.
Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments in Moore v. Harper, a North Carolina gerrymandering case where legislators are asking for the power to ignore their own state constitutions.
This case could upend American democracy as we know it — here’s what you need to know.
— ACLU (@ACLU) December 7, 2022
In response to Republican ex-President Donald Trump’s bogus assertions that the 2020 election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud, Republican-led state legislatures have proposed further limits on the right to vote.
If the court rules in favour of the plaintiffs by the end of June, it might affect elections in 2024, including the presidential election.
This case is a big deal–and we weighed in strongly on the side of preserving democracy and the rule of law. Judge Luttig is right–“This is the single most important case on American democracy — and for American democracy — in the nation’s history.” https://t.co/LohkAqBtQe
— Phil Weiser (@pweiser) December 7, 2022
Justices discussed the possibility of federal courts reviewing state court actions during the three-hour argument, to prevent judges from acting like legislators or unfairly applying nebulous provisions of state constitutions like those requiring free and fair elections to undermine the authority of state legislatures.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, expressed doubt that such broadly worded rules provide appropriate “standards and principles” for state courts to apply.
For additional information, continue to check pabaon.com. Remember to bookmark our websites for the most recent updates.
