A super critical decision forthcoming a the USSC concerning
a host of issues regarding our right to vote in a free, fair, safe, and secure
election and be assured that our vote truly does count and we never see a
repeat the farce from Trump following the 2020 election to some extent he can’t
let go… story here from ABC News with this
headline:
“Supreme Court
to hear redistricting case that could upend election laws everywhere”
The U.S. Supreme Court announced it
will hear a case this fall that could upend state election laws across the
country.
The case is Moore
v. Harper: It focuses on a new NC voting map created by court-appointed
experts after earlier maps proposed by the Republican-led state legislature
were struck down.
In a nutshell: The NC Supreme Court last February
ruled that the maps offered by the state general assembly were partisan gerrymanders,
violating free speech, free assembly, and equal protection provisions of the
state constitution.
The NC state legislature appealed
that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to take up the issue
of redistricting and possibly restore the Republican-drawn map.
Central to the petitioners' argument is the so-called “independent state legislature theory” – a fringe legal concept pushed by a small group of conservative advocates that would give state legislatures broad authority to run federal elections.
They would do that without the traditional oversight
from a state constitution or judiciary, whom these advocates argue have no
right to intrude on elected representatives.
Observers say there could be major ramifications from the
Supreme Court's eventual decision.
ABC News Political
Director Rick Klein said: “This has the potential to change the rules
of the game in far-reaching ways in time for the next presidential election. Depending
on how far the Supreme Court goes, it could virtually invite
Republican-controlled legislatures to rewrite centuries-old laws ensuring that
the candidate who gets the most votes in a state gets its electoral votes. And
or even could free legislatures to pick electors on their own.”
Qualified elector defined below and
also here:
A. A person who is qualified to
register to vote pursuant to section 16-101 and who is properly registered to
vote shall, if he is at least eighteen years of age on or before the date of
the election, be deemed a qualified elector for any purpose for which such
qualification is required by law, except as provided in section 16-126. A
person continues to be a qualified elector until that person's registration is
canceled pursuant to section 16-165 or until that person does not qualify as a
resident as prescribed by section 16-101, subsection B.
B. For purposes of subsection A of this
section, a person who does not reside at a fixed, permanent or private
structure shall be properly registered to vote if that person is qualified
pursuant to section 16-101 and if that person's registration address is any of
the following places located in this state:
1.
A homeless shelter to which the registrant regularly returns.
2.
The place at which the registrant is a resident.
3.
The county courthouse in the county in which the registrant resides.
4.
A general delivery address for a post office covering the location where the
registrant is a resident.
C. A person who is otherwise qualified to register to vote shall
not be refused registration or declared not qualified to vote because the
person does not live in a permanent, private, or fixed structure.
D. As used in this section, “homeless shelter” means a supervised
publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living
accommodations to individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime
residence.
Klein then concluded:
“It could wind up making it far easier for a future state legislature to
actually do what Trump allies so desperately wanted done in the messy aftermath
of the 2020 election.”
The “independent state legislature theory”
argues that under the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause and Electors Clause,
state legislators can determine how elections are conducted without checks and
balances from the other governmental actors such as state constitutions, courts, or gubernatorial vetoes.
That Elections
Clause reads: “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 [choosing] Senators.”
The Electors
Clause further states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number
of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of
Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
The Electors Clause was
central to the unsuccessful plot by former President Donald Trump and his
allies to use “fake electors to overturn his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.”
Thomas Wolf,
deputy director with the Brennan Center's Democracy Program at NYU told ABC
News: “The theory contradicts the intent of the Constitution's framers,
and it's contrary to 200-plus years of practice, the way we actually run
elections, and it's contrary to over a century's worth of Supreme Court
precedent. It's also just disastrous as a policy matter. That the argument, if
accepted by the high court, could lead to the elimination of protections
against discrimination for voting and strip election administrators of their
ability to efficiently run and regulate elections. The NC Supreme Court said
back in February that the theory would produce absurd and dangerous
consequences.”
NC House Speaker Tim Moore celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to take up the case, stating that he was confident the justices would agree with their view that the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives the General Assembly authority to draw districts, then he concluded saying: “This case is not only critical to election integrity in North Carolina, but has implications for the security of elections nationwide.”
Note: The Supreme Court first confronted the case in March,
when North Carolina's state legislature sought emergency relief. The justices
ultimately denied that request, but three conservative on the bench said they
would have granted a stay of the North Carolina Supreme Court's order.
Justice Samuel
Alito in his dissent, joined by Justices and Gorsuch said: “This case
presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional
law, namely, the extent of a state court's authority to reject rules adopted by
a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections.”
Helen White, counsel at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, in
a press call noted that the the Supreme Court ruled on the matter of partisan
gerrymandering just three years ago in Rucho v. Common Cause wherein the court
said while it wouldn't step in to police partisan gerrymandering, state courts
and constitutions were a means of regulating gerrymandering in congressional
elections.
White said: “If
the court were now to adopt the independent state legislature theory, it would
be a radical pivot from what they themselves have said about the issues in this
case.”
Note: Moore
v. Harper will be argued before the nine justices in the term beginning this
October 2022, with a decision handed down in time for the 2024 campaign.
My 2 Cents: Very simply I say “hang on tight – we are in uncharted iceberg-filled
waters and this basically 6-3 radical conservative leaning USSC is controlling
a new version of the Titanic at midnight when it’s flood lights are about to go
dim.
Key part in question: The appeal to the Supreme Court is based on “independent state legislature doctrine,” a fringe legal theory that contends state legislatures should have the power to determine how elections are run without any checks and balances from state constitutions or state courts.
As SCOTUS Blog notes, proponents of the theory point to the
Constitution’s Elections Clause, which gives state legislatures the
power: To set the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives.”
The nation’s highest court
has historically deferred to state courts on how state election laws should be
interpreted. In previous opinions, conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch,
and Kavanaugh have signaled a willingness to reconsider it.
Endorsing the “independent state legislature” theory would be a radical departure from the established precedent, and could trigger even more legal chaos for future federal elections.
So, man the lifeboats, Republicans first – everyone else – well you’re on your own – good luck.
BTW: We (the GOP) own the lifeboats, will man them, and save ourselves first (always #1).
Got an issue – take it up with your state legislators – good luck with that.
All this means is one thing I said for a while now – this “new” Trump owned and operated GOP at all levels will change the laws and rules regarding future elections with one purpose: To ensure they are run on their terms and that they (the GOP at all levels) never, ever lose again like they did in 2020.
Plus, they will control all the avenues up and down the line to head off or shut down any challenges, and again just for their sole benefit – not the voters' rights, voices, wishes, and choices.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment