Supreme Court might destroy voting rights.

[CastletonSnob]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supre...b00a9334e53b49

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its fall 2022 session on whether state courts play any role in judging the constitutionality of election laws and legislative district maps passed by state legislatures.

The case of Moore v. Harper is brought by Republicans in the North Carolina state legislature who claim that state courts have no say on whether the voting laws they write or the district maps they adopt are unconstitutional under their state’s constitution.

If the court accepts these arguments, it would wipe out the last remaining protection available against extreme partisan gerrymandering and greatly increase the ability of state’s to adopt highly restrictive voting laws.

It could also play a role in any future attempt by presidential candidates to steal an election, as former President Donald Trump attempted in the 2020 election. Siding with the North Carolina Republicans could effectively give all electoral authority to state legislatures, including in the approval of the winner of the state’s Electoral College electors.

[cubby]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supre...b00a9334e53b49

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its fall 2022 session on whether state courts play any role in judging the constitutionality of election laws and legislative district maps passed by state legislatures.

The case of Moore v. Harper is brought by Republicans in the North Carolina state legislature who claim that state courts have no say on whether the voting laws they write or the district maps they adopt are unconstitutional under their state’s constitution.

If the court accepts these arguments, it would wipe out the last remaining protection available against extreme partisan gerrymandering and greatly increase the ability of state’s to adopt highly restrictive voting laws.

It could also play a role in any future attempt by presidential candidates to steal an election, as former President Donald Trump attempted in the 2020 election. Siding with the North Carolina Republicans could effectively give all electoral authority to state legislatures, including in the approval of the winner of the state’s Electoral College electors.

The argument the GQP is bringing here is based on the separation of powers act, and argues that district maps are purely political, and therefore the Judicial Branch of any state doesn't have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of those gerrymandering maps.

And I think they have a good chance of winning.

[Fugus]

As a resident of North Carolina, I apologize for the traitors in my state. But honestly, if it wasn't us, it would have been another of them.

But as a resident here, the GOP here have already proven they will lie, cheat, steal and would probably kill for power if they thought they could and I even used to debate one of their family members and they are every bit as lying and self serving as they come.

[Gestopft]

Just like their last major gerrymandering case, their approach will presumably be "if citizens feel a lack of appropriate representation, it is up to state legislators to solve." Might as well solve prescription drug prices by putting Big Pharma in charge.

[tehdang]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supre...b00a9334e53b49

Of course. Huff Post.

Let's go Scotusblog for something a tiny bit less Stuart Little:

Issue: Whether a state’s judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives ... prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof,” and replace them with regulations of the state courts’ own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.

The Supreme Court will take up a case from North Carolina next term that could upend federal elections by eliminating virtually all oversight of those elections by state courts. On Thursday, the justices granted review in Moore v. Harper, a dispute arising from the state’s efforts to draw new congressional maps in response to the 2020 census.

The doctrine at the heart of the case is known as the “independent state legislature” theory – the idea that, under the Constitution, only the legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts. 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.”

Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist was an early proponent of the theory. In a concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 case that halted the recount in Florida in the presidential election, Rehnquist (in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) outlined his view that the state court’s recount conflicted with the deadlines set by the state legislature for the election.

The issue returned to the Supreme Court in 2020, when the justices turned down a request by Pennsylvania Republicans to fast-track their challenge to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that required state election officials to count mail-in ballots received within three days of Election Day. In an opinion that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch) suggested that the state supreme court’s decision to extend the deadline for counting ballots likely violated the Constitution.

After the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature adopted a new congressional map in early November 2021, a group of Democratic voters and non-profits went to state court to challenge the map. They contended among other things that, because the state is roughly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters, the new map – which likely would have allowed Republicans to pick up two more seats in Congress, giving them as many as 10 of the state’s 14 seats – was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state’s constitution.

In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court blocked the state from using the map in the 2022 elections and ordered the trial court to either approve or adopt a new map before the end of the month. The trial court adopted a new map, drawn by three experts appointed by the court.

Republican state legislators came to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis in late February, asking the justices to reinstate the legislature’s original map before the state’s primary election, which took place on May 17. But over a dissent by Alito that was again joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, the court turned down the request. Both the Alito dissent and a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, called the “independent state legislature” theory an important question, with Alito adding that the justices “will have to resolve this question sooner or later, and the sooner we do so, the better.”

The legislators returned to the court later in March, seeking review of the North Carolina Supreme court’s decision invalidating the legislature’s map and ordering a new map for the 2022 elections. They told the justices that the state supreme court’s order was “starkly contrary to the” elections clause. The text of that clause, the legislators insisted “creates the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections and then vests that power in ‘the Legislature’ of each State.” The “independent state legislature” question, the legislators stressed “‘is almost certain to keep arising until the Court definitively resolves it.’” And because North Carolina will use the map created by the court for its 2022 congressional elections, they continued, the justices should resolve the question in this case, rather than having to do it on an expedited basis in a dispute arising after an election has already occurred.

State officials countered that the North Carolina dispute would not resolve the “independent state legislature” question at all, because the state legislature had specifically given the state’s courts the power to impose a temporary redistricting plan – just as the North Carolina Supreme Court did in this case.

One group of challengers added that, in any event, the U.S. Supreme Court lacked the authority to hear the dispute now, because there was no final judgment by the state supreme court, which is considering currently whether the replacement map is valid.

After considering the case at three consecutive conferences, the justices granted review on Thursday. The case will likely be argued in the fall, with a decision to follow sometime early next year.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...re-v-harper-2/
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/j...ral-elections/

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Uncle Ruckus will destroy everything until we're back to the 1920s. Its a damn shame what radical conservatives and radicalized christianity is doing to this country

[Gestopft]

Of course. Huff Post.

Let's go Scotusblog for something a tiny bit less Stuart Little:



https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...re-v-harper-2/
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/j...ral-elections/

No commentary? I mean, clearly this is utterly batshit insane (and thanks for the link, but it doesn't in any way shine a more favorable light on it)- the idea that our system of checks and balances simply shouldn't apply when it comes to voting laws. The idea that a state legislature could write a blatantly unconstitutional law, refuse to change it, and the courts of that state would not be able to do anything about it?

Also, I assume you mean Chicken Little?

[PACOX]

The extremely vulnerable state of voting rights is something I know I've brought on this forum. Our voter rights are not protected at all. It's an issue my grandparents hammersquad into me as a kid as they were old enough to know people who had their constitutional voter riguts shit on until 1960, even then things weren't great. The US never actually fixed the issues, we just put a band-aid on it and hope everyone respected a certain line (a very generous one) to not be crossed. You should be very thankful of some 'activist' judges who make it their mission to check all the bullshit states try to get off.


The federal government never hard coded voter protections. As we just heard in the Jan 6 hearings, the DoJ doesn't really intervene even when states are out of pocket. Taking away the little bit of power federal judges have to keep states in line will be disastrous. Makes sense why Southern states don't want post-Civil War history taught. No need because they are about to put on their own modern reenactment if/when SCOTUS sides with Alabama. I hate to say it but we don't have the President who will stand up to the injustice and make the radical moves to do anything about it.

[Malkiah]

"might"?

that's fucking optimistic.

[Gestopft]

I hate to say it but we don't have the President who will stand up to the injustice and make the radical moves to do anything about it.

If inviting Joe Manchin to the White House and not pressing him all that hard, really, isn't "radical," then I DON'T KNOW WHAT RADICAL IS ANYMORE

[anveena]

Here's hoping for another win from this great SCOTUS we have going atm. Just win after win for republicans.

[cubby]

Here's hoping for another win from this great SCOTUS we have going atm. Just win after win for republicans.

What's left on the agenda for this session?

- - - Updated - - -

I hate to say it but we don't have the President who will stand up to the injustice and make the radical moves to do anything about it.

What, specifically, would you suggest Biden do then? Give us the "radical" moves you think he should make, and why they would work.

[PACOX]

What's left on the agenda for this session?

- - - Updated - - -



What, specifically, would you suggest Biden do then? Give us the "radical" moves you think he should make, and why they would work.

I don't think Biden has it in him to throw down like a LBJ, a Roosevelt when the rest of government needs to be checked.

[Calfredd]

Here's hoping for another win from this great SCOTUS we have going atm. Just win after win for republicans.

Less "children" for the left to "kill" so that the right has more children to kill.

Edit: Thought this was the Roe v Wade thread.

[Mihalik]

Here's hoping for another win from this great SCOTUS we have going atm. Just win after win for republicans.

I'm curious. Can you articulate what exactly are you winning? Explain it to us.

- - - Updated - - -

Less "children" for the left to "kill" so that the right has more children to kill.

Edit: Thought this was the Roe v Wade thread.

Fewer.

[cubby]

I don't think Biden has it in him to throw down like a LBJ, a Roosevelt when the rest of government needs to be checked.

Like what? Like how? Specifically, what could Biden do right now, even radically, to fix this growing situation?

[Gestopft]

Here's hoping for another win from this great SCOTUS we have going atm. Just win after win for republicans.

I hope you realize that the actual project of the GOP/conservative court majority is to protect power and wealth at the expense of the working class.

You're a mark; just sayin'

[Dontrike]

Here's hoping for another win from this great SCOTUS we have going atm. Just win after win for republicans.

Imagine being such a terrible person that these are "wins" to you. How you don't see the problems this will have for you in the future is astonishing.

[uuuhname]

I can't wait to hear more pleas for fundraising by the Democrats in the face of this.

[Tentim]

I mean if highly restrictive voting laws translate into have identification to vote that is only a positive. I can't see how gerrymandering would be seen as a positive though.