So basically it’s hot air to keep the courts involved in the political process.
Well, hypothetical bad cases are pretty much hot air, as each side could imagine their own worst case.
My guess would be that the SC would rule in favor of judicial involvement, as that’s what the SC does a lot of.
I don’t know, this court is a lot more literal in it’s thinking.
IMHO any excursion from our election system will be shot down in the courts really fast. This is still a country of “We the people”, no matter how much the Republican plan at win at any cost will try.
The constitution doesn’t require a state wide election at all.
This is what it says:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
they could prescribe and election of the state house. Or an election of the gov.
Or an election of landowners.
Or whatever they want.
Issue: Whether a state’s judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives … prescribed … by the Legislature thereof,” and replace them with regulations of the state courts’ own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.
Right now, the only available briefs are the Petition stage briefs. Petitioner’s merits brief is due 45 days after the grant of certiorari and Respondent’s merit briefs 30 days after that, so it will be a while before they are available.
Here are links to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, amici briefs and Respondent briefs. There are four different Respondents in this case and all filed briefs.
First link is to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Brief amicus curiae of National Republican Redistricting Trust
Brief of respondents North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc., et al.
Brief of respondents State Respondents
Brief of respondent Common Cause
Brief of respondents Rebecca Harper, et al.
Reply of petitioners Timothy Moore, et al.
Still doesn’t say anything about nullifying an election.
Again, it doesn’t require an ‘election’ at all, the way we think of an election - a tallying of votes from all eligible citizens.
A state could deem an ‘election’ to mean the state legislature votes.
It could deem ONLY the govoner votes.
It could deem only land owners vote.
Read the 17th.
Doesn’t preclude the states from defining ‘elections’ as they see fit.
pssst… they can already do that.
1 Like
but courts can choose to ignore the law when they in fact have zero constitutional power to do so.
Read it again.
if by that you mean literally following the constitution… yes.
as for this case? doubtful they will.
on one side you have this courts aversion to getting involved in elections even when they should. On the other is the court declaring the legislatures reign supreme on this matter and their decisions are beyond judicial review.
will the judiciary limit its own power, or will they cling to it? I do not believe Roberts, Kavanaugh, or Barret will willingly surrender power the judiciary previously usurped.
Which can be bound to act in certain ways by state laws and constitutions.
what good are laws that state courts ignore?
Ignore what law?
yeah, right. i’m sure you’re not fully aware
What laws?
My favorite take on this “ignored our laws” BS is in my own state of Pennsylvania, where the GOP-controlled legislature essentially accused ITSELF of wrongfully passing no excuse mail-in voting!
yeah, the law the courts ignored
