Would SCOTUS scrap HR1 if enacted into law?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

Okay, I guess I was just mistaken or misinformed about that. Thanks for the correction.