Until the Supreme Court released its opinions yesterday morning, there was uncertainty about whether they would rule on Moore v. Harper, a case that could further harm American democracy. However, the Court chose to tackle the case head-on, bringing relief to lawyers and democracy advocates. The case involved the “independent state legislature” theory, which suggests that state lawmakers have special powers to administer federal elections. This theory could potentially limit voter protections and raise doubts about the integrity of the vote. The Court’s decision to hear the case was met with concern from both the left and the right.
The case became complicated due to jurisdictional issues. Originally from North Carolina, the state’s supreme court had ruled against a political gerrymander by the Republican-controlled legislature, citing the state’s Constitution. However, the ruling was later overturned by the state’s high court, which was now under Republican control. The Supreme Court ordered multiple rounds of briefing to determine if it still had the authority to rule on the case. Despite arguments for setting the case aside, the Court chose to proceed.
Punting on the case would have avoided a difficult legal question, but it would have left the issue unresolved, potentially leading to chaos in the 2024 election. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 6-3 majority, firmly rejected the maximalist view of the independent state legislature theory. He emphasized that state legislatures are bound by the provisions of their state constitutions and that state courts must have the power to review their actions. Roberts also debunked a misrepresentation of a past Supreme Court case, which had been used by Trump supporters to challenge the 2020 election results.
While the Court’s majority opinion represents a defeat for the theory’s strongest supporters, it does not entirely eliminate the possibility of future litigation on the authority of state legislatures in federal elections. The Court stated that federal courts may intervene if state courts infringe on lawmakers’ authority. This aspect of the decision raises concerns about the potential power of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, to challenge state court rulings, even those that could decide an election.
The Court’s decision does not provide clear guidelines on how far state courts can go before crossing the line, leaving room for future confusion. However, the majority’s tone suggests that federal courts will have a high bar to meet when intervening in such cases. The conservative supermajority seems to have taken a step back from radical changes, possibly due to right-wing lawyers pushing too aggressively or public criticism of the Court’s political nature.
Ultimately, the Court’s handling of future disputes will determine its commitment to protecting elections from bad-faith interference. While the Moore decision prevents the worst outcomes, safeguarding elections entirely is challenging. If the Court wants to be seen as the arbiter in these disputes, it must be ready to identify and reject any meddling done in bad faith.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
