All about US Supreme Court elections
2022.12.09 13:47
All about US Supreme Court elections
Budrigannews.com – Even though the Supreme Court of the United States appears reluctant to exempt Republican legislators in North Carolina from judicial scrutiny of voting regulations, the restrictions it may allow could still give politicians more power over how federal elections are conducted at a critical time for American democracy.
Some of the conservative justices balked at the lawmakers’ broadest arguments on Wednesday, which stemmed from a contentious legal theory that would eliminate any role that state courts and state constitutions play in regulating presidential and congressional elections. The argument was over a map that shows the state’s 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts.
The conservative majority on the court is 6-3. Given that the three liberal justices oppose the “independent state legislature” doctrine, one can anticipate that a combination of the six conservatives will decide the outcome.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and three conservatives are likely to play a significant role. They appeared to be concentrating on a less specific option than the Republican lawmakers had in mind, which was to limit state court authority to overrule voting policies created by state politicians in situations where judges behave more like legislators.
Jason Snead, a conservative elections expert, stated, “It would be fair to say, whether a broad or narrow ruling, it’s a win for North Carolina lawmakers.”
According to Snead, who heads the Honest Elections Project, a group that sometimes opposes bids for more expansive voting rules favored by liberal organizations and Democrats, this kind of “middle ground” ruling, as some court watchers have called it, would still place lawmakers in the “driver’s seat” when it comes to regulating federal elections.
According to Snead, “you would end up in a better position as a legislature in terms of having your authority to write election laws affirmed.”
Richard Hasen, an expert in election law at the UCLA School of Law, claims that this outcome would not be as burdensome as completely eliminating state courts from the election process.
However, Hasen stated that it is still a “bad alternative” because it would permit the Supreme Court to question state court rulings protecting voters’ rights, even in highly charged election cases such as presidential races.
Hasen stated, “State legislators would get another bite at the apple.”
The case has been brought before the Supreme Court at a time when American political polarization and disagreements over voting rights are at an all-time high. This is especially true in the wake of Republican former President Donald Trump’s erroneous claims that widespread voter fraud stole the 2020 election from him.
Leftists have blamed conservative state councils for undermining the privileges of electors by forcing new limitations in the fallout of Trump’s cases, while conservatives declare that they are essentially making preparations for extortion.
More Humanitarian organizations have received an exemption from sanctions-UN
In North Carolina, state courts replaced a congressional map that was drawn by Republican lawmakers with one drawn by a group of experts from both parties because it was illegally biased against Democratic voters. The Republicans argued that the North Carolina supreme court abused its authority by rejecting the map in their appeal to the Supreme Court.
The doctrine’s proponents argue that the United States Constitution grants state legislatures authority over election rules and electoral district maps, excluding state courts. This viewpoint is supported by the fact that the Constitution states that “the legislature thereof shall prescribe in each state the times, places, and manner” of federal elections.
It could make it easier for the majority party in a state legislature to draw the boundaries of U.S. congressional districts to consolidate its power, a practice known as gerrymandering, if it is enacted. This would limit a crucial check on partisan political power. It has been argued by Republicans that restricting mail-in ballots, drop boxes, and requirements for voter identification could stall challenges.
The concurrence of then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist to the court’s decision that tipped the 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush suggested that some of the conservative justices might be interested in applying his perspective. Rehnquist stated that the U.S. Constitution restricts the authority of state courts in that context, which was a dispute regarding the counting of ballots in Florida.
Kavanaugh stated to Republican attorney David Thompson that his position appeared to “go further” than Rehnquist’s view that state courts would continue to have a role to ensure that state lawmakers’ actions complied with state law.
Kavanaugh added, “should be a check to make sure that state courts had not significantly departed from state law” when a federal court reviewed that procedure.
Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the voters and voting rights groups that challenged the Republican-drawn map, told the justices that adopting this viewpoint raises questions about state sovereignty.
Katyal stated, “This court has never questioned state court interpretations of their own constitution.”
In support of President Joe Biden’s administration’s support for the voters, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar agreed that the Supreme Court should only intervene in cases where a state court is “not acting like a court” and making policy.
More Russia expands nuclear arsenal-US Department of Defense
Because judges frequently accuse other judges of engaging in policymaking rather than lawmaking, liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned that adopting such a standard to strike down a state court might be “satisfied too easily.”
“Judges frequently say these things to one another. How can this be a check that is rarely used? Kagan demanded
According to Thomas Wolf, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, the Supreme Court runs the risk of coming across as illegitimate and politically motivated if it gives itself too much leeway to intervene in disputes between state courts.
Because legislatures’ actions would continue to be restricted by federal law and the U.S. Constitution, conservative scholars refute the notion that the doctrine would grant state politicians unfettered power.
