Would SCOTUS scrap HR1 if enacted into law?

[brucejoel99]

Their argument would be that election law is under the states' authority and the federal govt has no business in imposing such regulations.

Congress actually has fairly broad authority to regulate elections. Article I, Section 4 gives Congress the power to, "at any time," "make or alter" regulations governing the "time, place and manner" of federal elections. There is a long, though sparse, historical record of Congress using this power in ways far more intrusive than H.R. 1. Obviously this wouldn't stop the current Court from picking out a handful of provisions and declaring them beyond the power of Congress, but it would be very difficult for them to scrap the whole thing.

The fact that HR1 purports to regulate state legislative elections as well as Congressional ones strikes me as unlikely to pass muster.

What provision thereof does this? I haven't seen &/or heard of anything like that in the bill myself.

[brucejoel99]

To clarify for everybody, there are no provisions of H.R. 1 (at least, as far as I can tell) that seek to implement limitations on anything - incl. partisan gerrymandering - at the state legislative &/or local level. Doing so would be unconstitutional, yes, which is why the bill's provisions only require states to use independent commissions for congressional district lines.

[brucejoel99]

The redistricting provisions probably , the other parts id say probably not

For state legislative seats and local government districts, I agree, but why would regulating US House districts be a constitutional problem?  Those are federal elections.  For example, there is an existing federal law requiring that states draw single member districts.  Is that constitutional?

HR 1 still requires states to establish the independent redistricting commissions, which is iffy on anti-commandeering grounds.

I feel like that'd be a bit of a stretch (though maybe not for this Court), wouldn't all federal election reform that ever required anything of the states (e.g., UOCAVA) be unconstitutional were that logic to be extended in such a fashion?

[brucejoel99]

Ok so congress can't regulate local/state elections that much but they can regulate the house/senatorial elections. However what about presidential?

The Constitution only explicitly allows Congress to determine the "time" at which presidential electors are chosen (as opposed to their authority over the "time, place and manner" of congressional elections), but the relevant case law on this matter - Burroughs v. United States - basically granted Congress broad regulatory authority over political campaign committees & the like that seek to participate in & influence federal elections, including presidential elections. As far as I can tell, the only thing that H.R. 1 really purports to do regarding presidential elections is requiring that presidential candidates & their running-mates disclose the previous 10 years of their tax returns, which would appear to be constitutional under current precedent.

[brucejoel99]

As far as I can tell, the only thing that H.R. 1 really purports to do regarding presidential elections is requiring that presidential candidates & their running-mates to disclose the previous 10 years of their tax returns, which would appear to be constitutional under current precedent.

I don't see how establishing an additional qualification for the Presidency by legislation could possibly be Constitutional. I'd imagine that gets struck down if it makes it into actual legislation.

The same way that requiring presidential candidates to file with the FEC didn't unconstitutionally serve to legislatively establish an additional qualification for the presidency in that the provision in question doesn't establish an absolute bar to candidates who otherwise meet the constitutional eligibility requirements (though, of course, this presumes that a majority of the Court is actually willing to rely upon its own precedent in this instance).