3Moore v. Harper, a lawsuit the Supreme Court heard last December, poses the biggest threat to US democracy since the January 6 attack on the US Capitol — although it’s worth noting that even some of the Court’s more conservative members seemed to recoil at some of the case’s implications when they heard oral arguments in Moore in December.
On Thursday, the justices signaled that they are likely to take an off-ramp from this case. The Court released a brief, one-paragraph order indicating that this case may simply disappear.
Moore rests on an awkwardly named legal theory, known as the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which claims that state lawmakers have expansive and potentially unchecked authority to write election laws that favor their preferred federal candidates.
Under the strongest version of this theory, members of each state’s legislative branch have unchecked authority to decide how elections for Congress and the presidency will be conducted in their state, a power potentially so broad that it could effectively be used to hand victory to a particular candidate.
That said, during oral arguments in December, a majority of the Court appeared to reject this most aggressive version of the doctrine. But most of the justices did appear open to weaker versions of the independent state legislature theory. And even under these narrower readings, the Supreme Court — with its 6-3 wingnut-appointed supermajority — could give itself sweeping and unprecedented authority to decide the winner of congressional and presidential elections.
But, as Thursday’s order suggests, the Court may no longer have the lawful authority to hear the case. The new order references a federal law which provides that, under certain circumstances, the justices may hear an appeal from “final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State.”
The Supreme Court signals that a terrifying attack on voting rights will vanish — for now
On Thursday, the justices signaled that they are likely to take an off-ramp from this case. The Court released a brief, one-paragraph order indicating that this case may simply disappear.
Moore rests on an awkwardly named legal theory, known as the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which claims that state lawmakers have expansive and potentially unchecked authority to write election laws that favor their preferred federal candidates.
Under the strongest version of this theory, members of each state’s legislative branch have unchecked authority to decide how elections for Congress and the presidency will be conducted in their state, a power potentially so broad that it could effectively be used to hand victory to a particular candidate.
That said, during oral arguments in December, a majority of the Court appeared to reject this most aggressive version of the doctrine. But most of the justices did appear open to weaker versions of the independent state legislature theory. And even under these narrower readings, the Supreme Court — with its 6-3 wingnut-appointed supermajority — could give itself sweeping and unprecedented authority to decide the winner of congressional and presidential elections.
But, as Thursday’s order suggests, the Court may no longer have the lawful authority to hear the case. The new order references a federal law which provides that, under certain circumstances, the justices may hear an appeal from “final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State.”
The Supreme Court signals that a terrifying attack on voting rights will vanish — for now
No comments:
Post a Comment