The Supreme Court decided on June 30 to hear an important new case that Republicans hope will re-empower state legislatures to make rules for redistricting and governing congressional and presidential elections. Democrats say this idea, encompassed by the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, is a fringe conservative legal theory that could endanger voting rights
Democratic Party attorney and election law activist Marc Elias denounced the court’s decision to hear the case.
- “The Supreme Court will hear a case next term that may validate the dangerous independent state legislature theory," Elias wrote. “Congress must enact comprehensive voting rights and anti-subversion legislation before it's too late."
The doctrine has been in the news because conservative Republican activist Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent emails to 29 Republican state lawmakers in Arizona urging them to choose the state's presidential electors despite the disputed popular vote tallies showing Democrat Joe Biden had won the state.
- In her emails, Thomas asked Arizona legislators to "stand strong in the face of political and media pressure" and asserted that the responsibility to select electors was "yours and yours alone."
Tim Moore, a Republican who is the speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, explained why he supports the doctrine
- "The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: state legislatures are responsible for drawing congressional maps, not state court judges, and certainly not with the aid of partisan political operatives."
- The elections clause in Article 1 states: "The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof."
- The presidential electors clause gives each state the power to appoint presidential electors in such manner as the Legislature may direct.
No comments:
Post a Comment