Gore case.Ĭhief Justice John Roberts also said that concession made by the legislature’s lawyer – who said under their theory, the governor can play a role by vetoing election rules – had undermined the Republicans’ case.Ī narrow ruling in legislature’s favor still possible: Those key swing votes however asked other questions that suggested that they could rule in North Carolina’s favor, however in a way that avoided blessing the idea that state constitutions could never provide a check on state election rules. Kavanaugh, meanwhile, said he thought the legislature was overreaching in how it was relying on a concurrence from then Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the 2000 Bush v. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked questions suggesting skepticism of the maximal version of the independent state legislature theory.īarrett seemed troubled by the distinction lawmakers were trying to make between non-legislative state entities being able to weigh in on procedural matters around how federal elections were run versus the substantive matters around elections being out of those entities reach. Key swing votes appear skeptical of the maximal version of the Republicans’ arguments: North Carolina’s GOP legislature appears to be short of five votes it would need to get a Supreme Court ruling that adopted the most aggressive version of their arguments. Here are key takeaways from Wednesday's oral arguments: But it has implications for all kinds of election rules and the ability of state courts to interpret them. Wednesday’s case arises out of dispute over whether the congressional map was a partisan gerrymander so extreme that it ran afoul of the state’s constitution. The controversial “independent state legislature” theory is being used by Republican lawmakers to argue that state courts could not redraw the congressional map the legislature sought to enact in 2021.Ī version of theory was promoted by allies of former President Donald Trump during their attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Other justices floated other possible standards.įor their part, liberals told a lawyer for the lawmakers that his position in the case would upend electoral politics, cause chaos on the ground and embolden state legislatures to act without judicial oversight.Īrguments in the Supreme Court’s blockbuster election rules case played out for more than three hours on Wednesday as the justices examined claims from the North Carolina GOP legislature, which argues that state constitutions and state courts have little or no authority to impose limits on how state legislatures craft their rules for federal elections.
He suggested that if a state supreme court is crystal clear with concrete provisions on what is allowed, a legislature would have to adhere to those state constitutional limits.
At one point, Roberts seemed to suggest a middle ground position. The Supreme Court seemed open to arguments made by North Carolina Republican lawmakers, suggesting that state courts and other state entities have a more limited role in reviewing election rules established by state legislatures when it comes to federal elections.Īlthough the conservative justices appeared to embrace versions of a long-dormant legal theory that would allow only some constraints on state legislatures - it was unclear what the exact contours of the court’s final decision would be.Īfter three hours of arguments it appeared that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett could ultimately determine the breadth of the decision and how elections will change going forward. Behind them, from left, are Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In the front row, from left, are Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. The US Supreme Court justices pose for a group portrait in October.
0 kommentar(er)
