Would SCOTUS scrap HR1 if enacted into law?

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

I'd assume they justify that under a 14th/15th Amendment logic but this is... not a Court inclined to view those amendments broadly. There is also an anti-commandeering argument against the law requiring the states to set up these independent redistricting commissions; the argument's been made that this doesn't run afoul of the principle, but it's logic the court could use to strike down that provision.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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?

Right, the argument for the government (which has been generally accepted in the past) is that the Elections Clause lets Congress do things that wouldn't otherwise be permissible under the Commerce Clause.