SCOTUS to review "independent state legisilature" theory regarding federal elections next term

[Skill and Chance]

There's really nothing preventing state legislatures from assigning electors now, just that all 50 states have laws requiring them to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state and it's such a radical position to repeal it that even the Republican Legislatures and Governors aren't willing to. Someone like Mastriano would be willing to buy still unclear if he could get such a bill passed.

Repealing it after the election would probably be struck down by even the most conservative court as an ex post facto law and we saw how interested courts were in Trump's post-election attempts. Still any case that would potentially push gerrymandering even further is quite worrisome.

Why couldn't they just pass a law today saying "the state's presidential electors will be determined via popular vote; however, a majority of the legislature, within three weeks of the election, may override this and determine the presidential electors" if they passed it before the election?

There's nothing in the Constitution that says they couldn't do that.

You guys are still operating under the notion that the court has principles.

A legislature can’t be bound by a past legislature and therefore they can what we want will be the ruling from all 6.
And you idiots will still be sitting here arguing that if just the texts or the argument was different.

The Supreme Court has been captured and isn’t practicing anything resembling law anymore.

Republican legislatures are currently arguing that state laws banning abortion passed in 1849, 1901,  1925, and 1931 and never explicitly repealed during the Roe years are valid and came back into force. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There's really nothing preventing state legislatures from assigning electors now, just that all 50 states have laws requiring them to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state and it's such a radical position to repeal it that even the Republican Legislatures and Governors aren't willing to. Someone like Mastriano would be willing to buy still unclear if he could get such a bill passed.

Repealing it after the election would probably be struck down by even the most conservative court as an ex post facto law and we saw how interested courts were in Trump's post-election attempts. Still any case that would potentially push gerrymandering even further is quite worrisome.

Why couldn't they just pass a law today saying "the state's presidential electors will be determined via popular vote; however, a majority of the legislature, within three weeks of the election, may override this and determine the presidential electors" if they passed it before the election?

There's nothing in the Constitution that says they couldn't do that.

They could yes, I'm talking more about when crackpots like Mastriano wanted to pass something like that after the 2020 election and went nowhere.

As noted Arizona had such a bill but the House Speaker opposed it and killed it before a vote with some parliamentary roadblocks. But he's term limited and won't be around next term.

You mean that crackpot masteriano who has nearly even odds of becoming the next governor of pennsylvania? I think you're proving the point here.

"Nearly even" is stretching it.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Allowing legislatures to election draw maps is one thing and would likely help Dems in congress and Republicans get a lock on several key state legislatures as was the case last decade.

However, would the court really want to delegitimize American democracy to the point where people's votes literally don't matter and the legislature can elect whoever they want? I think that is extremely unlikely.

It would be ironic though if the House ends up with a Dem bias due to a 52-0 Cali. Fr, it seems a bit risky on Republicans part given the only states they'd get to gerrymander would be NC, AZ, and maybe MI and PA. Dems would get CA, NY, WA, CO, MD, ect, ect.

[Badger]

There's really nothing preventing state legislatures from assigning electors now, just that all 50 states have laws requiring them to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state and it's such a radical position to repeal it that even the Republican Legislatures and Governors aren't willing to. Someone like Mastriano would be willing to buy still unclear if he could get such a bill passed.

Repealing it after the election would probably be struck down by even the most conservative court as an ex post facto law and we saw how interested courts were in Trump's post-election attempts. Still any case that would potentially push gerrymandering even further is quite worrisome.

Why couldn't they just pass a law today saying "the state's presidential electors will be determined via popular vote; however, a majority of the legislature, within three weeks of the election, may override this and determine the presidential electors" if they passed it before the election?

There's nothing in the Constitution that says they couldn't do that.

They could yes, I'm talking more about when crackpots like Mastriano wanted to pass something like that after the 2020 election and went nowhere.

As noted Arizona had such a bill but the House Speaker opposed it and killed it before a vote with some parliamentary roadblocks. But he's term limited and won't be around next term.

You mean that crackpot masteriano who has nearly even odds of becoming the next governor of pennsylvania? I think you're proving the point here.

"Nearly even" is stretching it.

You are splitting hairs. The type of craziness he represents absolutely can come to power in numerous States over the next few years, making the threat to democracy described by several posters here in very very tangible.

[Skill and Chance]

Allowing legislatures to election draw maps is one thing and would likely help Dems in congress and Republicans get a lock on several key state legislatures as was the case last decade.

However, would the court really want to delegitimize American democracy to the point where people's votes literally don't matter and the legislature can elect whoever they want? I think that is extremely unlikely.

It would be ironic though if the House ends up with a Dem bias due to a 52-0 Cali. Fr, it seems a bit risky on Republicans part given the only states they'd get to gerrymander would be NC, AZ, and maybe MI and PA. Dems would get CA, NY, WA, CO, MD, ect, ect.

Yes, this net benefits Democrats on redistricting if it goes through.  If it's limited to state courts, they get to re-gerrymander NY and MD while R's only get to re-gerrymander NC.  If commissions as applied to congressional districts go down, Dems pick up a ton of seats in CA, WA, and probably CO assuming the trifecta holds.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

However, would the court really want to delegitimize American democracy to the point where people's votes literally don't matter and the legislature can elect whoever they want? I think that is extremely unlikely.

Why?

At what point in there entire professional lives has Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett not been working towards that goal?

[Mr. Reactionary]

There's really nothing preventing state legislatures from assigning electors now, just that all 50 states have laws requiring them to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state and it's such a radical position to repeal it that even the Republican Legislatures and Governors aren't willing to. Someone like Mastriano would be willing to buy still unclear if he could get such a bill passed.

Repealing it after the election would probably be struck down by even the most conservative court as an ex post facto law and we saw how interested courts were in Trump's post-election attempts. Still any case that would potentially push gerrymandering even further is quite worrisome.

Why couldn't they just pass a law today saying "the state's presidential electors will be determined via popular vote; however, a majority of the legislature, within three weeks of the election, may override this and determine the presidential electors" if they passed it before the election?

There's nothing in the Constitution that says they couldn't do that.

You guys are still operating under the notion that the court has principles.

A legislature can’t be bound by a past legislature and therefore they can what we want will be the ruling from all 6.
And you idiots will still be sitting here arguing that if just the texts or the argument was different.

The Supreme Court has been captured and isn’t practicing anything resembling law anymore.

Republican legislatures are currently arguing that state laws banning abortion passed in 1849, 1901,  1925, and 1931 and never explicitly repealed during the Roe years are valid and came back into force. 

Yes, but a future legislature can repeal those old laws. What he means is the 2022 legislature cant pass a law that can never be repealed by the 2023 legislature.

[ProgressiveModerate]

However, would the court really want to delegitimize American democracy to the point where people's votes literally don't matter and the legislature can elect whoever they want? I think that is extremely unlikely.

Why?

At what point in there entire professional lives has Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett not been working towards that goal?

No, they've followed quite a conservative and literal view of the US constitution though. I'd argue only Alito and Thomas are truly nut jobs while the other 4 are just justices with one way of looking at the constitution.

No matter your judicial doctrine, no justice inside the remotely normal box would vote to end American Democracy.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

However, would the court really want to delegitimize American democracy to the point where people's votes literally don't matter and the legislature can elect whoever they want? I think that is extremely unlikely.

Why?

At what point in there entire professional lives has Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett not been working towards that goal?

No, they've followed quite a conservative and literal view of the US constitution though. I'd argue only Alito and Thomas are truly nut jobs while the other 4 are just justices with one way of looking at the constitution.

No matter your judicial doctrine, no justice inside the remotely normal box would vote to end American Democracy.

What gives you this impression?

If you actually follow their decisions and not their pr machine this court has decided that has invented novel doctrines (as of today non-delegation on major questions, sovereign dignity of states, etc.), laws from 1925 overrule laws from 1935, wether we have democratic elections is a political question

These people aren’t following any rational legal theory.

And we need to understand that and push back on anyone trying to sell ‘orginalism’. It’s not and never has been about a literal reading of the constitution. The vast majority of it relies on either novel or long dead doctrines not ever contemplated by the framers.
What it is is a political doctrine, and they are relying on people just taking them at their word that what they are doing is high minded legal reasoning too complex for us regular people. Please don’t fall for it.

Quothe Elena Kagan in today’s descent:


Even their colleagues, with a vested interest in the integrity of the court kayfabe, aren’t pretending to believe this anymore.

[Devils30]

In the immediate aspect of this case Democrats actually have a lot more to gain since they have so many more large states that vote heavily in their favor.  States like California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland all would be empowered to draw extreme D gerrymanders without any oversight.  

Republicans are limited because all their large states vote more 50/50 like Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Arizona.   There's only so much gerrymandering they can do when the votes simply aren't all there.

Will Democrats be willing to aggressively gerrymander though? Or will they yet again chicken out in the name of "bipartisanship"?

Oh you had better believe they would do that. They’ll likely be able to maneuver themselves into eternal control of the House in this instance. The GOP is taking a fly swatter to a hornet’s nest with this one.

If (when?) Texas’s legislature flips they will be beyond screwed

Don’t forget Georgia after 2030. Could end up with Dems able to create 228-230 districts 3-5% more Dem than the national popular vote in the next redistricting cycle.

[Frodo]

US democracy will die and never come back because of this. Ginsburg’s death was the single worst thing to ever happen in US history.

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1542521138906992640?cxt=HHwWgMCo8bOzkegqAA...

Well, if worse comes to worst, and the Democratic Party is kept permanently out of power because of shenanigans like this, Democrats can simply switch parties and become Republicans and take over their party instead, wresting it away from the Trumpsters who currently dominate it.  

One way or another, our voices will be heard.  If we can't do so through the general election, we will do so via the GOP primary, reconstituting the liberal-moderate wing of the Republican Party in the process.  At the very least, we should keep that option open.  

[Beet]

At the rate things are going, the Democrats won't have to worry about this stuff because there's no way in hell this do-nothing/stagflationary recession party will be popular enough to win a fair election.

[lfromnj]

Btw has anyone actually read the lawsuit ?
A major claim is that the court suspiciously refused to accept the actually partisanly fair remedial map and instead imposed a map that removed all competition.

The case is more narrow then expected fwiw.

[Skill and Chance]

Btw has anyone actually read the lawsuit ?
A major claim is that the court suspiciously refused to accept the actually partisanly fair remedial map and instead imposed a map that removed all competition.

The case is more narrow then expected fwiw.

People are dooming ridiculously about this.  If SCOTUS wanted to just elect the Republican candidate after the fact or endorse state legislatures doing that, all current members had the opportunity to do so by taking the Texas case in December of 2020.  They rejected it 7/2, and the 2 Justices who dissented quite possibly did so based on longstanding technical beliefs about SCOTUS jurisdiction (that they can't constitutionally decline a case between states with only a one sentence explanation) vs. any indication that they would have ruled in favor of the conservative states.  Regardless, the worst possible interpretation is a 7/2 rejection of Trump's view on the 2020 election results from the most conservative court since WWII.  Find something else to worry about.