The Court decides in Moore v. Harper, just issued.
From the syllabus:
The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, famously proclaimed this Court’s authority to invalidate laws that violate the Federal Constitution. But Marbury did not invent the concept of judicial review. State courts had already begun to impose restraints on state legislatures, even before the Constitutional Convention, and the practice continued to mature during the founding era. James Madison extolled judicial review as one of the key virtues of a constitutional system, and the concept of judicial review was so entrenched by the time the Court decided Marbury that Chief Justice Marshall referred to it as one of society’s “fundamental principles.” Id., at 177.
The Elections Clause does not carve out an exception to that fundamental principle. When state legislatures prescribe the rules concerning federal elections, they remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review. Pp. 11–26.
That's the last opinion for today, per SCOTUSblog.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, with Justice Thomas dissenting, joined in full by Justice Gorsuch and in part by Justice Alito.
Posts
34 comments:
Disappointed.
That seems right. Why should election rules be a carve out from the otherwise broad authority of courts to ensure that state legislatures are following the state constitution?
"That's the last opinion for today, per SCOTUSblog."
Memo just issued by Antifa and BLM, "We'll have to wait, probably Thursday. Store the gasoline, matches carefully. See if you can acquire more bats and pepper spray."
Is this the open door for the Democrats' gutting of all election rules ?
"famously proclaimed"
Famously fabricated.
FIFY.
I saw a summary of the result and IMMEDIATELY knew that it was a Roberts opinion, that he would make some specious tortured argument to get to his result.
So USSC has the final say on gerrymandering that affects federal elections. But not (so far) on the selection of Electors.
so the "impartial" US supreme court ruled that
the democrat state court was able to reject a republican legislature " gerrymandering "
and replace it with a democrat "gerrymandering"
??
1) Marshall was part of a conspiracy that created the controversy in Marbury, so he should have recused himself in the first place.
2) If judicial review was a "fundamental principal", it would have been included in the Constitution.
The point to having State Legislatures control voting laws is the Legislatures are the closest representatives to the people. Pretty easy to read, The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; Harder to corrupt a legislature than a court or judge. Except in Illinois...lol.
The left really scared the shit out of Barrett and Kavanaugh didn't they???
Roberts disappoints once again. Wisconsin's election laws will now be re-written by our new all female liberal Supreme Court majority, and RINO Brain Hagedorn. Why even have a State Legislature if four liberal dingbats and a pussy turncoat on the WI State Supreme Court can write election laws and draw maps? I give. I'm going to drink more beer than I already do.
Good luck in Pennsylvania. Their Supreme court is Uber liberal. MI too. Arizona courts have done nothing and Maricopa fucked with SAME DAY voting to install Hobbs in 2022.
Guess I'm back at the point where I'm asking myself, "why bother to vote again"? Only I'm allowed to jerk my own chain. Hey DeSantis supporters. This is another nail in the coffin.
Courts fail the people for voter fraud relief, and this now helps to further increase fraud levels where liberal courts will deem reasonable election integrity laws "unconstitutional". (Voter ID, signature checking on absentee ballots, chain of custody, ballot harvesting in Madison WI parks...)
Blogger gspencer said...
Disappointed.
I bet you are. Me too.
It is so deflating when an extremely determined minority can’t subvert the will of the majority in a National election.
What does it mean - I'm not a lawyer. It seems to me that the legislature makes the law, approved by the governor and cases that are appealed are decided by the courts - within the frame of the laws? So - for a layman like me, what does this mean? Does it affirm the license to so many State Supreme Courts to make their own rules, as they did in certain swing states in recent elections, seemingly in defiance of the laws?
OK, dumb-azz (former) engineer here. As I understand it the SCOTUS said state courts can review the laws passed by legislature to determine they are unconstitutional (State Constitution, I presume).
BUT, I also understand the state court didn't just say, "Nope, unconstitutional, try again". They said, "Nope, unconstitutional. Here is the map WE like."
Serious question, am I misunderstanding the ruling? If not, how does that fly?
Art. One, Sec. Four: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof ...."
It's always a relief to learn through the eyes of an eminent and respected jurist like C.J. Roberts that the Constitution and especially the word "shall" don't mean what they say./s
I haven't read the opinion - I've had enough judicial blather in my lifetime - but I'm guessing Roberts' distortion has to do with voting for black people. Never mind that it likely opens the door for more election cheating by Democrats in their "model" cities.
Thomas's dissent is dispositive. The "issue" the USSC decided was mooted below. There was no Case or Controversy existing at the time this opinion was issued
I understand the majority opinion and generally agree. Unfortunately, I’ve seen court rulings that clearly violated state constitutions made during elections, and it ended up being corrected long after people considered it reasonable to void the election and try again.
I think the decision in this particular case is the correct one- it is the legislature's responsibility, using its own power within the state, to prevent the state court systems from usurping their power over redistricting. The case is the one from North Carolina where the top court in that state threw out the legislature's gerrymander and imposed a different gerrymander. The court was out of its depth and power, but it isn't up to the federal courts to fix this- it is North Carolina's problem. This decision was foreordained, though, by the recent SCOTUS case on the Voting Rights Act.
The case was moot anyway- the Carolina court ordered a rehearing and withdrew the original decision after some Democrats lost their jobs on the court.
And to answer a question above- yes- this will now enable the Democrats to change any voting law they like by doing so in state courts. Mail-in-voting will now be extended everywhere the Democrats control the top court in a state, and every gerrymander that they don't like will get tossed out, too. I suspect most GOP controlled legislatures will roll over and show their bellies, too.
BUT, I also understand the state court didn't just say, "Nope, unconstitutional, try again". They said, "Nope, unconstitutional. Here is the map WE like."
Serious question, am I misunderstanding the ruling? If not, how does that fly?
The courts did say, "try again." The NC Supreme Court sent it back to the lower courts, who told the Legislature to redraw the maps. The court ruled that the new maps still violated the N.C. constitution, and so permitted the use of maps created by a special master for the 2022 election. When the new NC Supreme Court overturned the initial ruling, it didn't invalidate those maps. It sounds like SCOTUS didn't even bother touching that issue. It merely addressed the question of whether the NC courts had any authority to rule on the issue at all, and concluded that they did.
Limiting the power of state supreme courts would necessarily call into question the power of the US Supreme Court, something conservatives might think twice about since every other major American institution has been captured by the opposition.
What, lawfare isn't allowed in elections now?
My only problem with the case is this- had this been a Democrat legislature and a Republican state supreme court, the SCOTUS case would likely have had a different result- the three Democrats on the court would have definitely supported the Thomas/Gorsuch/Alito opinion. I think it possible that Alito would have switched the other way.
I hate this reasoning backwards from the desired result, which is almost 100% of the Democrat justices method of reaching a decision, and probably close to 75% of the Republican justices. Maybe today's case will strengthen the spines of Republican legislators so that they don't atrophy their political muscles by depending on the minimal ethics of court judges.
All this comes from the refusal of the Republican party - at the state level - to rein in their courts. Given that the Federal courts rule on every aspect of state law, there's little need for a state court doing a judicial review of state legislature electoral decisions. And if there is a need, it should cicumstribed to the max.
Its simply absurd that we have liberal/left State courts making last minute changes to the election laws. The State legislatures should put a stop to it.
Again, all this judical tyranny and meddling comes from the failure of Congress and the State legislatures to exercise their power. For example, Congress can determine what the appealete courts can rule on. Have they ever cicumscribed the Power of the Judiicary? I don't think so. They constantly refuse to do so, because they WANT the judges pushing through Gay marriage, busing, etc. etc.
Maybe the best thing for the USA would be a monarchy. Its obvious the citizens are too stupid and lazy to maintain representative government. Lets just get rid of the fiction of democracy, and have a King.
Sucks that the legislature doesn't have the unilateral unfettered power to throw out the result of a fair and valid election, and doesn't have the unilateral unfettered power to decide whether an election is fair and valid. What a blow for democracy.
The left really scared the shit out of Barrett and Kavanaugh didn't they???
Bingo ! Sending those crazies around with guns, knives and zip ties works every time, especially with pussies.
Roberts tosses the Political Question separation of powers doctrine right out the door when it suits him.
Good! No more alternate (FAKE) elector nonsense.
The left really scared the shit out of Barrett and Kavanaugh didn't they???
ACB isn't Mini-Me.
If we had a monarchy and Joe was king guess who his successor would be? Hunter!! If we had a papal type selection process (smoke signals!) we would still wind-up with a Joe Biden type. Let's stick with our existing democratic process as bad as it seems. I'm interested in what our global situation will be in 500 years (time enough for ten generations to have passed by unless Zuckerberg develops his live forever pill). I mentioned this once in response to a J. Farmer comment but he didn't like my 500 year event horizon.
Sucks that the legislature doesn't have the unilateral unfettered power to throw out the result of a fair and valid election, and doesn't have the unilateral unfettered power to decide whether an election is fair and valid. What a blow for democracy.
So you'd rather an unelected tribunal have this power instead? You use the word democracy but apparently don't understand it.
6-2 on merits.
It is so deflating when an extremely determined minority can’t subvert the will of the majority in a National election.
There is no such thing as a 'national' election, brainiac.
Blogger jim5301 said...
Sucks that the legislature doesn't have the unilateral unfettered power to throw out the result of a fair and valid election, and doesn't have the unilateral unfettered power to decide whether an election is fair and valid. What a blow for democracy.
jim1234, as usual, has no idea what this is about. Pelosi tried to pass HR 1 to allow the feds to rewrite all election laws. She couldn't get it passed but the Court has now ruled that it's OK.
Post a Comment