Supreme Court rules that state constitutions cannot restrict state legislatures in deciding how federal elections are run, says David O'Brien, policy director for RepresentUs, an anti-corruption group that advocates for voting rights and that joined a legal brief against the independent state legislature theory. State constitutions enshrine many voting protections, such as the right to cast a secret ballot and guarantees of absentee or mail-in voting.īut some of those protections could go away in elections for Congress and for president if the U.S. It could make it easier for state lawmakers to ignore voting rights protected under state law It doesn't really resolve anything," says Stuart Naifeh, an attorney who manages the redistricting project at the Legal Defense Fund, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the theory. And that is essentially the big problem with the middle-of-the road approach. "There will be different views on when a state court has gone too far. How much of a mess could be created would depend in large part on how high and clear that kind of a standard would be. Supreme Court could set a standard for when it would step in to review a state court's decision about congressional elections that involves that state's constitution. A number of the justices' questions were devoted to how the U.S. Supreme Court, questions about whether various aspects of federal elections are legal could be left hanging in the air, adding uncertainty and making it harder for local officials to carry out ongoing elections.Īn alternative solution to the case, which was discussed during December's oral arguments, could also lead to a legal mess, many court watchers warn. Whatever rules the court might set, it can expect that in many states and in many state legislatures, the boundaries are going to be pushed.Īnd as legal challenges push their way toward the U.S. "Whatever rules the court might set, it can expect that in many states and in many state legislatures, the boundaries are going to be pushed." And many state legislators are willing to do whatever it is that they can in order to further the power of their political party or of their political supporters," says Guy-Uriel Charles, an election law professor at Harvard Law School. "We're living in a moment in which these election rules really do matter with respect to turnout and control of Congress. Supreme Court and lower federal courts could be "flooded with requests to second-guess state court decisions interpreting and applying state elections laws," warned a rare legal brief from the Conference of Chief Justices, which represents the top judges in every state. Supreme Court appeals of other state court decisions about federal elections.Įvery election cycle, the U.S. Supreme Court answers that question may seem narrow.īut a ruling that sides with the Republican North Carolina state lawmakers who appealed the case would be a radical departure for the country's highest court, which has long deferred to state courts on how state constitutions should be interpreted.Īnd if a majority of the justices decide not to shut the theory out completely and instead adopt a less robust version, they could open the door to more U.S. S23Z0402.On its face, the potential impact of how the U.S.IN THE MATTER OF IAN ZIMMERMAN (five cases) We would appreciate that you refrain from contacting anyone here prior to publication. Please note that Court personnel are not able to disclose information to anyone about these decisions. Summaries of noteworthy opinions will also be released at that time. Links to the posted opinions will be activated by 9:00 a.m. Opinions for the cases listed below are subject to modification or withdrawal at the discretion of the Court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |