New York Times: Supreme Court Seems Split Over Case That Could Transform Federal Elections
New York Times: Supreme Court Seems Split Over Case That Could Transform Federal Elections
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed splintered on Wednesday about whether to adopt a legal theory that would radically reshape how federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures largely unchecked power to set all sorts of election rules and draw congressional maps warped by partisan gerrymandering.
The justices’ questioning over three hours of arguments suggested that they were roughly divided into three camps. The three most conservative justices appeared prepared to embrace an expansive version of the theory, while the three liberal justices were adamant that it should be rejected.
The remaining members of the court — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — seemed to be searching for a compromise under which state supreme courts would generally have the last word on disputes over state laws governing federal elections but be subject to oversight from federal courts in rare cases.
The case concerned the “independent state legislature” theory, which is based on a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” …
When the court closed the doors of federal courts to claims of partisan gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the five most conservative members of the court, said state courts could continue to hear such cases — including in the context of congressional redistricting.
“Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering,” he wrote. “Nor does our conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void. The states, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts.”
Seeming to anticipate and reject the independent state legislature theory, he wrote that “provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.”