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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This would actually benefit Democrats in some states (New York is the after all the largest state where the state high court invalidated redistricting) so I suspect they'll find some excuse to reject it especially as North Carolina probably doesn't need it if the Republicans control the State Supreme Court next year. Still...yikes.

[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.

[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.

I don't think this is true.

It's not technically true because of EV-by-CD in Maine and Nebraska, but all states make laws on how electors are chosen and 48 states do require that they are chosen by statewide popular vote.  There has been no serious attempt to change this post-2020 even in Republican trifecta swing states.

There was a semi-serious attempt in Arizona to pass a bill giving the Legislature some leeway on this but the House Speaker used a procedural maneuver to effectively kill it. But he's term-limited and won't be around next session.

[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.

[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.