Independent State Legislature theory =?

The so-called “Independent State Legislature” theory, which lies at the center of the legal nuts and bolts, was also pushed by allies of former President Donald Trump after the 2020 election as part of their bid to effectively overrule the will of voters and potentially replace electors for President Joe Biden with slates selected by Trump allies in state government.

If the theory is embraced by the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, critics say, rogue legislators would be freed to act without any constraints by courts in their states.

So, if this theory holds sway, state legislators can just appoint the electors for the candidate they prefer regardless of the votes.

Will this be the way the 6-3 court comes down?

Will it lead to states overturning the will of the people?

cant see roberts endorsing this stupid stuff.

the other 5, who knows.


Why can’t news be news…and not simply pushing a slanted POV?

“If the theory is embraced by the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, critics say, rogue legislators would be freed to act without any constraints by courts in their states.”

If the majority of state legislators were Democrats, would it then be “heroic” instead of rogue?

No…it would still be rogue.

No one should be in favor of this.


I like the “checks and balance” systems and I also like neutral news and let me decide what I’m in favor of.

do you really think members of the democratic party will support selecting electors in a state rs won the plurality of votes.

not a chance.


Then you would be against SCOTUS ruling in favor of the Independent Legislature.


The rest is just grousing for grousing’s sake.

Yes. It could just as well come back the other way. I consider it similar to a filibuster.

Good…just like CNN reported.

In case you didn’t notice, YOU added partisanship into CNN’s statement,

All it said was “rogue legislators”. YOU added in “GOP” when it wasn’t there.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.–US Constitution Article 2, section 1

It would be rogue no matter who did it.


The decision to hear the case is a boon to Republicans,

You realize that the plan presented in a power point presentation to trump included this very thing- having states wrote their own elector slate and then depend on there Supreme Court to uphold it as constituional, right?

Because they are the ones currently arguing for The Independent Legislature.

Show me a case where Dems are arguing for it and then we can talk about bias.

And once such a method is chosen they can’t unilaterally change it in the course of the same election.

1 Like

that found Democratic state lawmakers illegally gerrymandered new congressional districts — but warned that waiting for the case to be decided could backfire on them.

1 Like

I missed the part where the Democratic legislators were arguing the state courts had no power over them.

Can you point that out in the article, please?

1 Like

I’m missing the part where a legislature is allowed under this doctrine to negate an election held under the states election laws Doesn’t sound like an actual threat. The doctrine seems to say the courts don’t have authority over the state legislature’s pre-election deliberations and rule making for upcoming elections, specifically the drawing of state congressional districts boundaries.

Of course, the alternative could happen. Perfectly reasonable state legislators could be overturned by rogue judges. Each side will of course support the theory that benefits them right now.
In the Gore/Bush case of 2000, the Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the State Supreme Court, but I don’t recall anyone arguing that the treatment of the election belonged purely to the state legislature. But if no one even raised the argument it wasn’t ruled on, yes or no.

It’s no more of an argument than it would be to say that the courts can’t get involved because they might decide to overturn a perfectly legitimate election.