We often hear about the United States having a “federal government”. That comes directly from Article IV, Section 4, of the US Constitution, which declares: “The United States shall guarantee to all states in this union the Government of the United States.”
Most of the conservative U.S. Supreme Court seems intent on making some changes in that language. That is, to force a Republican national government by allowing state legislatures to set election laws on their own, without interference from their governors or state courts.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments later this year in Moore v. Harper, a case that raises the question of whether a state legislature, acting on its own, can create state election laws, even those that are not state laws . The truth is that North Carolina’s Republican legislature approved a reform plan that was struck down by the state’s Supreme Court earlier this year as a “non- willing and unwilling to be a group gerrymander.” The plan violates state law, so that should be the end of it.
But the controversy, which revolves around a few innocuous words in the US Constitution, has been brewing in rightwing legal circles since our Supreme Court Most have lived into them in Bush v. Gore’s decision in 2000. The words in Article I, Chapter 4. , say: “The Time, Place and Method of Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be recorded in into each State by the Legislature thereof…” The North Carolina Supreme Court is asking the Court to decide that this statement gives its final meaning recycling. and, for example, all other laws for federal elections in the state. Their idea is called “independent state law” (ISLT).
If the Supreme Court agrees with the GOP-controlled legislation, it would be a boon for the Republican Party in two important ways. First, it would allow the Gerrymandered GOP lawmakers to self-perpetuate and approve voting rights that undermine all other parties. Governors, who must be more political than legislators because they must appeal to statewide constituencies, and the state’s highest court, which is chosen by the president or facing their own statewide elections, will not be able to oppose these actions.
Second, Article ll, Chapter 1, of the Constitution uses similar language for electors in the electoral college, for example, “Each State shall elect. [Electors], as the law of it can be taken directly. “The Court’s ruling will give legal effect to the kind of efforts made by GOP opponents in the 2020 election to expose other presidential candidates. What a tribute to Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginni, who worked so hard to get legislators in at least two states, Arizona and Wisconsin, to submit ballots vote for the electoral college that favors President Trump. Justice Thomas has a conflict of interest in this case and must recuse himself, even if risk of marriage in his house.
While the decision to pass the law would be a major blow to the GOP, it would be a hammer blow to the law in America. The idea that the state legislature, acting on its own, can create important rules for the conduct of federal elections, is anathema to the literature of our constitution. of checks and balances.
The people who wrote the constitution were driven by the idea that the government should be divided into three branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial – so that each branch can follow as an analysis of the strength of others. The law passes the law, only becomes law with the approval of the executive, and the state courts have the power to judge it. It’s that simple. The structure of our Constitution would be ridiculous considering that our high court can still decide such a bad plan as the legislature is peddling.
As many legal scholars have pointed out, there is no legal or historical evidence to support ISLT. The Conference of Chief Justices, composed of the chief justices of the courts of last resort in the United States states and territories, is measured with a short break remove the thought and point out the serious situation it is causing to our government. I have been a member of this group and can confirm that it will only take one step if it considers the threat to the state courts to be very serious. The expectation that the Supreme Court could deprive the state courts of the power to judge the violence of state legislatures is a violation of the 10th Amendment. Amendments to the US Constitution. The only support for the theory is from the false information that the legislators relied on in his Supreme Court Report.
Republican-appointed judges have already done yeoman’s work for their party by bettering the voting rights of those in the other party. Holding the ISLT is a bridge to cross, because it has no legal recognition, history or support.
The Supreme Court should release this case because there is a serious danger to our freedom. If we want to have a clear Republican government, let it come from a fair competition at the national ballot box.
Jim Jones is a Vietnam War veteran who served eight years as Idaho attorney general (1983-1991) and 12 years as justice of the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017), counting with the opportunity to be a direct leader.