The court’s decision to issue a definitive opinion came as a surprise to some court watchers. “We hold only that state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.”ĭespite that caveat, the opinion represents a major defeat for proponents of the independent state legislature theory - in part, because Roberts won a six-justice majority for his opinion and effectively sidelined three of the court’s most conservative justices on the issue. “The questions presented in this area are complex and context specific,” Roberts wrote. The chief justice offered a warning of sorts to state judges not to run wild, but the decision issued Tuesday left open the question of when such a state court ruling would go too far. Roberts’ majority opinion does not give state courts free rein to impose any sort of limits on legislatures’ action. “The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Roberts wrote, referring to the provision of the federal Constitution that formed the basis for the independent state legislature theory. Constitution allows state courts to continue to interpret state constitutions to put limits on lawmakers’ powers. A Supreme Court decision adopting the theory would have upended congressional elections - and potentially the presidential election - heading into 2024.īut the Supreme Court concluded that the U.S. Powered by CityBase Screendoor.Ĭonservative legal activists backed by some GOP operatives had urged the high court to broaden the power of state legislatures, often under Republican control in recent years. In doing so, the nation’s top court maintained the power of state courts to review election laws under state constitutions, while urging federal courts to “not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review.” This form requires JavaScript to complete. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Opponents of the theory argued that it could have led to unchecked partisan gerrymandering, and laws that would make it harder for people to vote.Ĭhief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s opinion, joined by the three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with two conservatives, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. A particularly robust reading of the theory - which the court turned aside - would have empowered state legislatures to make decisions on all aspects of elections, from congressional lines to how people register to vote and cast a ballot, without any opportunity for challengers to contest those decisions in state courts under state laws or constitutions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |