The comments are flying after SCOTUS’ 6-3 decision in Moore v. Harper. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision rejecting the theory that state courts could not police federal election rules. He was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Here are media articles explaining why the ruling shocked both sides of the case, politician and the pubic as well.
People watch live news reports in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday. (Minh Connors/The Washington Post)
Supreme Court rejects controversial Trump-backed election law theory
By Ariane de Vogue and Tierney Sneed, CNN, Updated 3:42 PM EDT, Tue June 27, 2023. CNN’s Dianne Gallagher contributed to this report.
“The Supreme Court said Tuesday that the North Carolina Supreme Court did not violate the elections clause of the US Constitution when it invalidated the state’s 2022 congressional map, rejecting a broad version of a controversial legal Independent State Legislature theory pushed by supporters of former President Donald Trump. . . .
The case had captured the nation’s attention because Republican lawmakers in North Carolina were asking the justices to adopt a long-dormant legal theory and hold that state courts and other state entities have a limited role in reviewing election rules established by state legislatures when it comes to federal elections.”
“State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the 6-3 opinion.
The decision states federal courts cannot abandon their role in supervising state courts through judicial review, but “state courts do not have free rein.”
“When state legislatures act pursuant to their Elections Clause authority, they engage in lawmaking subject to the typical constraints on the exercise of such power,” he wrote. “In sum, our precedents have long rejected the view that legislative action under the Elections Clause is purely federal in character, governed only by restraints found in the Federal Constitution.”
Read the complete article.
Supreme Court rejects theory that would have meant radical changes to election rules
by Robert Banes, The Washington Post, published 6/27/23, 10:22AM EDT; updated 6/27/23, 5:05 pm EDT
“The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected what would have been a radical change in election law, dismissing the theory that state legislatures have almost unlimited power to decide the rules for federal elections and draw partisan congressional maps without interference from state courts.
The Constitution’s elections clause “does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a 6-3 decision.
The decision was praised by Democrats and civil rights groups, more for firmly rebuffing what they viewed as an outlandish theory than for establishing new law. A wide coalition of scholars, liberal lawyers and conservative former judges had denounced the theory as unmoored and extreme.
Maintaining the status quo is seen as significant for a court that in recent years has constricted voting and election protections in federal law and the Constitution.”
Tracking the remaining major 2023 Supreme Court cases and decisions
The article goes on to contract how this decision contrasted to many others recently written by SCOTUS’ majority. Read the complete article.
Breaking News from ALL ON THE LINE
The United States Supreme Court has issued its decision in Moore v. Harper.
The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued a historic decision to uphold our democratic system of checks and balances in Moore v. Harper, marking a resounding victory for the Harper plaintiffs and a triumph for fair democracy! For the past five years, our movement has been tirelessly fighting inside and outside the courtroom for fair maps that protect and strengthen the right to vote for all. Today, we celebrate this milestone achievement alongside folks like you that helped us get to this moment.
While we celebrate this momentous win, it is crucial to remember that this case should never have reached the Supreme Court in the first place. Nonetheless, the Court’s decision protects our democracy, safeguarding the critical role of state courts in redressing violations of voters’ rights. And it is a testament to the power of our advocacy, and we are more determined than ever to ensure fair maps in every state