Independent State Legislature Theory

[Richard-H]

Scotus is currently hearing arguments in the Moore v. Harper case which questions whether State courts have the right to overrule the State Legislatures in matter regarding federal elections.

This is an entirely bogus concept of the question. Courts never set the law and never truly 'overrule' state legislatures. They compare actions by the State legislatures against previous actions by the State Legislatures for consistency and 'overrule' current State Legislature's actions if they are inconsistent with previous State Legislature actions.

In other words, it is earlier State Legislatures that ratify the State Constitution and all laws regarding Federal elections in that State. The courts simply judge whether there is consistency between current State Legislature actions and all actions by previous State Legislatures.

State Legislatures both current and earlier have absolute control over how Federal Elections are run. If the current State Legislature does not agree with previous State Legislatures, they are free to amend the State Constitutions, nullify existing law or create new laws. They have remedies.

What Moore v. Harper is really about is whether the current State Legislature can act whimsically without respect for any existing law. Nor would it require them to change the State Constitution or laws, which they do not want to do - because they would have to live with those changes in the future.

In essence Moore v. Harper is an attempt to create lawless State Legislatures.

 

[pknopp]

We absolutely need the courts to be able to oversee the actions of partisan legislators. Hopefully Roberts and Barrett come through here.

 

[Stann]

Scotus is currently hearing arguments in the Moore v. Harper case which questions whether State courts have the right to overrule the State Legislatures in matter regarding federal elections.

This is an entirely bogus concept of the question. Courts never set the law and never truly 'overrule' state legislatures. They compare actions by the State legislatures against previous actions by the State Legislatures for consistency and 'overrule' current State Legislature's actions if they are inconsistent with previous State Legislature actions.

In other words, it is earlier State Legislatures that ratify the State Constitution and all laws regarding Federal elections in that State. The courts simply judge whether there is consistency between current State Legislature actions and all actions by previous State Legislatures.

State Legislatures both current and earlier have absolute control over how Federal Elections are run. If the current State Legislature does not agree with previous State Legislatures, they are free to amend the State Constitutions, nullify existing law or create new laws. They have remedies.

What Moore v. Harper is really about is whether the current State Legislature can act whimsically without respect for any existing law. Nor would it require them to change the State Constitution or laws, which they do not want to do - because they would have to live with those changes in the future.

In essence Moore v. Harper is an attempt to create lawless State Legislatures.

If the courts don't hold the legislature responsible for their actions, who will ? You don't want any aspect of government having absolute power over the people. That is how dictators take over and establish fascist regimes.

 

[jwoodie]

To argue that state legislatures can't pass new laws and/or replace old laws without judicial permission is ridiculous, particularly when they are exercising authority specifically and solely granted to them by the Constitution.

You must be very worried about losing your power to influence election results.

 

[BackAgain]

Scotus is currently hearing arguments in the Moore v. Harper case which questions whether State courts have the right to overrule the State Legislatures in matter regarding federal elections.

This is an entirely bogus concept of the question. Courts never set the law and never truly 'overrule' state legislatures. They compare actions by the State legislatures against previous actions by the State Legislatures for consistency and 'overrule' current State Legislature's actions if they are inconsistent with previous State Legislature actions.

In other words, it is earlier State Legislatures that ratify the State Constitution and all laws regarding Federal elections in that State. The courts simply judge whether there is consistency between current State Legislature actions and all actions by previous State Legislatures.

State Legislatures both current and earlier have absolute control over how Federal Elections are run. If the current State Legislature does not agree with previous State Legislatures, they are free to amend the State Constitutions, nullify existing law or create new laws. They have remedies.

What Moore v. Harper is really about is whether the current State Legislature can act whimsically without respect for any existing law. Nor would it require them to change the State Constitution or laws, which they do not want to do - because they would have to live with those changes in the future.

In essence Moore v. Harper is an attempt to create lawless State Legislatures.

False analysis in the OP.

The Constitution explicitly calls for the respective state legislatures to set the voting laws of those states. A problem occurs when local voting boards or secretaries of state alter those legislated laws and rules. Such disputes goes to various state courts. Those courts might approve what the voting boards or secretaries of state have illicitly done.

Alternatively, sometimes a candidate or Party goes to court to ask some state judge to extend voting hours. Without any Constitutional authority to do so, judges sometimes do just that.

The SCOTUSblog clearly sets forth the actual issue in the case:

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.

Moore v. Harper - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Stann]

To argue that state legislatures can't pass new laws and/or replace old laws without judicial permission is ridiculous, particularly when they are exercising authority specifically and solely granted to them by the Constitution.

You must be very worried about losing your power to influence election results.

The states have the right to pass all the laws they want. The job of the judiciary is to keep them in check, invalidating unjust laws. The courts cannot create new laws they simply deem weather laws are constitutional or not. Playing its role in one of the three checks of our coverage to keep power under control and to stop tyranny. Currently, by 1973 standards, most of the southern states that passed abortion laws are already breaking the law by going too far and becoming especially egregious about the issue. I don't know why the courts haven't acted already to rescind those erroneous laws.

 

[jwoodie]

The states have the right to pass all the laws they want. The job of the judiciary is to keep them in check, invalidating unjust laws.

Are you serious??? The job of the judiciary is to interpret laws and determine and determine if they are constitutional. In the case of conducting elections, the U.S. CONSTITUTION gives that authority SPECIFICALLY to STATE LEGISLATURES. Unless the state legislatures violate some other provision of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., 14th Amendment), they are free to act as they see fit. In that event the federal (not state) judiciary should make that determination.

 

[Richard-H]

False analysis in the OP.

The Constitution explicitly calls for the respective state legislatures to set the voting laws of those states. A problem occurs when local voting boards or secretaries of state alter those legislated laws and rules. Such disputes goes to various state courts. Those courts might approve what the voting boards or secretaries of state have illicitly done.

Alternatively, sometimes a candidate or Party goes to court to ask some state judge to extend voting hours. Without any Constitutional authority to do so, judges sometimes do just that.

The SCOTUSblog clearly sets forth the actual issue in the case:

Moore v. Harper - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Of course, the preamble to the Moore v. Harper petition is worded to make the courts sound completely outlandish and activist.

The fact is that the courts aren't just making up voting rules, they are following existing laws - despite what the plaintiffs say.

This case is about maverick legislature violating existing laws and not having any checks and balances.

Independent state legislature theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stann]

Are you serious??? The job of the judiciary is to interpret laws and determine and determine if they are constitutional. In the case of conducting elections, the U.S. CONSTITUTION gives that authority SPECIFICALLY to STATE LEGISLATURES. Unless the state legislatures violate some other provision of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., 14th Amendment), they are free to act as they see fit. In that event the federal (not state) judiciary should make that determination.

Unjust equates to unconstitutional, same difference.

 

[my2¢]

Scotus is currently hearing arguments in the Moore v. Harper case which questions whether State courts have the right to overrule the State Legislatures in matter regarding federal elections.

From my understanding the case is in regards to the North Carolina state court overruling their legislature's drawing of congressional districts. The court deemed the legislature gerrymandered districts to the extreme and came up with a court appointed master to decide where the districts should lay. Seems to me the court overstepped its bounds.

 

[Stann]

From my understanding the case is in regards to the North Carolina state court overruling their legislature's drawing of congressional districts. The court deemed the legislature gerrymandered districts to the extreme and came up with a court appointed master to decide where the districts should lay. Seems to me the court overstepped its bounds.

They are supposed to do questionable and very questionable things as unconstitutional. They may have overstepped their bounds, they should have let the legislatures come up with a different plan on their own that would meet constitutional standards.

 

[1srelluc]

It's so bonkers I'm surprised SCOTUS took the case.

 

[Stann]

It's so bonkers I'm surprised SCOTUS took the case.

They had to, the balance of power was threatened in the state.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To argue that state legislatures can't pass new laws and/or replace old laws without judicial permission is ridiculous, particularly when they are exercising authority specifically and solely granted to them by the Constitution.

That is not what the argument is. Go back and read the OP.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are you serious??? The job of the judiciary is to interpret laws and determine and determine if they are constitutional. In the case of conducting elections, the U.S. CONSTITUTION gives that authority SPECIFICALLY to STATE LEGISLATURES. Unless the state legislatures violate some other provision of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., 14th Amendment), they are free to act as they see fit. In that event the federal (not state) judiciary should make that determination.

You speak with such authority and conviction one would never know- just from listening to you-that it is actually controversial. That is the problem with a lot of issues. People spout off and either pretent that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint, or out of ignorance, believ that it is. I see that being done on both the right and the left, but far more often by conservatives.

The ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,’ Explained

This dubious legal theory could have dramatic consequences for elections.

www.brennancenter.org

There are two relevant clauses. One is the Elections Clause, which reads, “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.”

The other is the Presidential Electors Clause, which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”

The dispute hinges on how to understand the word “legislature.” The long-running understanding is that it refers to each state’s general lawmaking processes, including all the normal procedures and limitations. So if a state constitution subjects legislation to being blocked by a governor’s veto or citizen referendum, election laws can be blocked via the same means. And state courts must ensure that laws for federal elections, like all laws, comply with their state constitutions.

Proponents of the independent state legislature theory reject this traditional reading, insisting that these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections. The result? When it comes to federal elections, legislators would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts couldn’t stop them.

It should be noted that this is considered a fringe theory based on a Textualist interpretation of the Constitution

Independent state legislature theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stann]

You speak with such authority and conviction one would never know- just from listening to you-that it is actually controversial. That is the problem with a lot of issues. People spout off and either pretent that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint, or out of ignorance, believ that it is. I see that being done on both the right and the left, but far more often by conservatives.

The ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,’ Explained

This dubious legal theory could have dramatic consequences for elections.

www.brennancenter.org

It should be noted that this is considered a fringe theory based on a Textualist interpretation of the Constitution

Independent state legislature theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Very " Fringe ", I believe they even had a television show about such strange events.

 

[jwoodie]

You speak with such authority and conviction one would never know- just from listening to you-that it is actually controversial.

Thank you, but I merely draw logical conclusions from facts as I know them. If I have made a error as to these facts or logic, I would appreciate having that pointed out (with specificity, of course).

P.S. Whether or not an issue is "controversial" is immaterial to me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you, but I merely draw logical conclusions from facts as I know them. If I have made a error as to these facts or logic, I would appreciate having that pointed out (with specificity, of course).

P.S. Whether or not an issue is "controversial" is immaterial to me.

Read the link in my post. It.s all right there It is not about you hving made an error. It's about you ignoring the facts that don't fit your narative

 

[Stann]

You speak with such authority and conviction one would never know- just from listening to you-that it is actually controversial. That is the problem with a lot of issues. People spout off and either pretent that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint, or out of ignorance, believ that it is. I see that being done on both the right and the left, but far more often by conservatives.

The ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,’ Explained

This dubious legal theory could have dramatic consequences for elections.

www.brennancenter.org

It should be noted that this is considered a fringe theory based on a Textualist interpretation of the Constitution

Independent state legislature theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The original 13 colonies signed the US Constitution and abide by it. All 50 states basically follow the same pattern having three branches of government executive legislative and judicial with checks and counter checks on each other to prevent tyranny by any one branch of the government. It was so popular that Venezuela (1811 ), Mexico ( 1824 ), the Central America federation (1825 ) and Argentina ( 1826 ) adopted their constitutions after the US Constitution.

 

[Stann]

Read the link in my post. It.s all right there It is not about you hving made an error. It's about you ignoring the facts that don't fit your narative

This idea doesn't fit The narrative of any state constitution.