The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that state constitutions can protect voting rights in federal elections and state courts can enforce those provisions, in a key opinion that should safeguard the integrity of the 2024 election.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Why am I not surprised? Of course those three would go against the prevailing judicial opinion and in favor of their own partisan view.
Opposing the independent state legislature theory in the Supreme Court were not only Democratic partisans, but a vast array of election law experts, important scholars on the left and right, judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, and the Conference of State Chief Justices, representing the chiefs in all 50 states.
…Roberts wrote in his majority opinion: “The elections clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.”
What in hell does it take to get these two impeached??
Unfortunately it’s harder to remove them than it is to add more Judges.
A 2/3rd majority in both houses of Congress.
Aka the bribery caucus
Do we know why they dissented? In another article it referenced that they didn’t think a ruling was appropriate because the NC courts overturning the ruling in question rendered the case moot. Neither article I’ve read gave more of an explanation than that.
Or did they flat out endorse the independent legislature theory?
The dissent didn’t state that the case should have gone the opposite way… they argued that the case should be moot based on the fact that the original dispute that caused the case had been settled. At least, that’s my understanding.
yeah that was my take away too from a very quick scan. I honestly couldn’t be bothered to read the entire dissent because I couldn’t imagine WTF Thomas needed that many pages to say the court didn’t need to even decide the case. He started off with a bunch of “we don’t ‘advise’” themes and then I just lost interest. I’m hoping SCOTUS blog does a decent summary of the decent. If it seems interesting enough maybe I’ll take the time to read the full text.
But based on his theme my answer would be, “yeah maybe. But you know what else the SCOTUS should do, take cases and issue decisions when it’s obvious ‘this shit ain’t dead’ and maybe, just maybe, you all should put a nail in the coffin of stupid ideas to remove all ambiguity”
He wants to leave room for ISL in the future, though considering how this court treats precedent I am not sure it matters.
This is a win for the US
This would’ve been a killing blow to democracy, we dodged a bullet here.
we dodged a bullet here
This time
Oh thank god
Hugely good news for democracy! Very unexpected from this court.
