Moore v Harper

[Spartans9312]

Takeaways from Moore v. Harper, the historic Supreme Court arguments on election rules

Arguments in the Supreme Court's blockbuster election rules case played out for more than three hours on Wednesday as the justices examined claims from the North Carolina GOP legislature, which argues that state constitutions and state courts have little or no authority to impose limits on how...

amp.cnn.com

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Elections Opening in Moore v. Harper

The case is about democracy, but not in the way critics claim.

www.wsj.com

“The panicked reaction to Moore v Harper is unconvincing. A legislature is the most Democratic branch of government. How is it vital for Democracy to let a state court re-write a voting law passed by elected legislators?”

 

[UncleMark]

“The panicked reaction to Moore v Harper is unconvincing. A legislature is the most Democratic branch of government. How is it vital for Democracy to let a state court re-write a voting law passed by elected legislators?”

It's that whole pesky checks and balances thing.

 

[TMFT]

Takeaways from Moore v. Harper, the historic Supreme Court arguments on election rules

Arguments in the Supreme Court's blockbuster election rules case played out for more than three hours on Wednesday as the justices examined claims from the North Carolina GOP legislature, which argues that state constitutions and state courts have little or no authority to impose limits on how...

amp.cnn.com

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Elections Opening in Moore v. Harper

The case is about democracy, but not in the way critics claim.

www.wsj.com

“The panicked reaction to Moore v Harper is unconvincing. A legislature is the most Democratic branch of government. How is it vital for Democracy to let a state court re-write a voting law passed by elected legislators?”

A whole era of Civil Rights rulings says hi.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

It's that whole pesky checks and balances thing.

So now you're going to have to define democracy, which isn't as easy as it looks.

 

[cosmickid]

Takeaways from Moore v. Harper, the historic Supreme Court arguments on election rules

Arguments in the Supreme Court's blockbuster election rules case played out for more than three hours on Wednesday as the justices examined claims from the North Carolina GOP legislature, which argues that state constitutions and state courts have little or no authority to impose limits on how...

amp.cnn.com

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Elections Opening in Moore v. Harper

The case is about democracy, but not in the way critics claim.

www.wsj.com

“The panicked reaction to Moore v Harper is unconvincing. A legislature is the most Democratic branch of government. How is it vital for Democracy to let a state court re-write a voting law passed by elected legislators?”

I'd say your statement were true if Legislators were elected by statewide vote, and gerrymandering wasn't the way individuals were able to retain power. But just like labor unions were necessary to rein in robber barons who couldn't be trusted to regulate themselves, the same is true of out of control Legislators...

IIRC Mastriano was the President of the PA Senate. Clearly he was not qualified to be Governor ,and a large majority of Pennsylvanians from all parties made that abundantly clear. But the fact that idiot voters in a single district elevated him to the point where thru majority party shenanigans he was able to assume a powerful position and implement measures which affect the majority of Pennsylvanians without being voted for by the majority of Pennsylvanians is just wrong.

SC Judges are elected by statewide vote in PA- that makes any of them far more representative of the will of the majority than Mastriano...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

A whole era of Civil Rights rulings says hi.

Reality says high. You don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[TMFT]

Reality says high. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Ten Voting Rights Cases That Shaped History

Read the latest by Democracy Docket.

www.democracydocket.com

Some pretty substantial rulings in here overturning (and upholding) laws passed by legislatures.

Although often mistaken I admire your ability to remain never in doubt.

 

[UncleMark]

It's that whole pesky checks and balances thing.

So now you're going to have to define democracy, which isn't as easy as it looks.

It's really not a question of "democracy", even though that term is getting thrown out a lot. It's a question of whether or not the Federal Supreme Court wants to allow a narrow reading of the Elections Clause (and maybe the Electors Clause in the future) to overturn the ability of state courts to exercise judicial review in applying their respective state constitutions to redistricting.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It's really not a question of "democracy", even though that term is getting thrown out a lot. It's a question of whether or not the Federal Supreme Court wants to allow a narrow reading of the Elections Clause (and maybe the Electors Clause in the future) to overturn the ability of state courts to exercise judicial review in applying their respective state constitutions to redistricting.

The fact this is even a close call is troubling. SCOTUS would have to overturn tons of precedent to rule in NC's favor, here. The idea that the Elections Clause is somehow the one part of the Constitution that is immune to the principles of both checks and balances and federalism is obscene.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Ten Voting Rights Cases That Shaped History

Read the latest by Democracy Docket.

www.democracydocket.com

Some pretty substantial rulings in here overturning (and upholding) laws passed by legislatures.

Although often mistaken I admire your ability to remain never in doubt.

this isn’t a race case.

SCOTUS has been avoiding the question presented by this case for years. There is still a way to avoid the two hard questions. Will it? Beats me. But the cases you cited don’t help.

The issues are inextricably intertwined.

First. Drawing congressional boundaries is unquestionably a legislative act. Under separation of powers, courts cannot perform a legislative act under the guise of judicial review. The law all over the country is that when reviewing a purely legislative act, courts are confined to a determination of whether the legislative branch acted within its authority and if the process was correct

Unless . . . .the legislation violates the constitution. Which brings us to the second question.

Second, Do democrats (or republicans) have the same rights as racial minorities in determining congressional boundaries? I don’t think so. Race is one thing. Membership in a political party is a different thing. People control whether they are democrats or republicans. They don’t control their race. SCOTUS has always avoided this question.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The fact this is even a close call is troubling. SCOTUS would have to overturn tons of precedent to rule in NC's favor, here. The idea that the Elections Clause is somehow the one part of the Constitution that is immune to the principles of both checks and balances and federalism is obscene.

Fail. You don’t understand the case.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There was an interesting question by Roberts, can a governor veto a legislature on elections. Using the strict wording test the answer has to be no, the clause specifically says that state legislatures have power, the word "governor" does not appear any more than the word "court". But NC GOP said of course governors can veto. Isn't that a problem for NC GOP?

The argument that the state legislature can make decisions free of judicial review and free of state constitution constraints sounds crazy. I'm not sure why free of governors was a bridge too far for them.

 

[TMFT]

this isn’t a race case.

SCOTUS has been avoiding the question presented by this case for years. There is still a way to avoid the two hard questions. Will it? Beats me. But the cases you cited don’t help.

The issues are inextricably intertwined.

First. Drawing congressional boundaries is unquestionably a legislative act. Under separation of powers, courts cannot perform a legislative act under the guise of judicial review. The law all over the country is that when reviewing a purely legislative act, courts are confined to a determination of whether the legislative branch acted within its authority and if the process was correct

Unless . . . .the legislation violates the constitution. Which brings us to the second question.

Second, Do democrats (or republicans) have the same rights as racial minorities in determining congressional boundaries? I don’t think so. Race is one thing. Membership in a political party is a different thing. People control whether they are democrats or republicans. They don’t control their race. SCOTUS has always avoided this question.

I'm clear it's not a race case. Those cases just exemplify situations where duly passed state legislation (e.g., poll taxes & grandfather clauses) having to do with voting was struck down on constitutional principles.

It's all much more of a grey area than you let on. For example, a district that has a large majority black population that happens to vote very strongly Democratic could ostensibly be cracked because of party (which would be okay) and not race (which is not okay) to avoid a problem.

At any rate, feel free to keep talking down to everyone who disagrees with you. This whole ISL theory is junk that is trying to get an in on one specific issue and then trying to expand it to much more nefarious ends.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Takeaways from Moore v. Harper, the historic Supreme Court arguments on election rules

Arguments in the Supreme Court's blockbuster election rules case played out for more than three hours on Wednesday as the justices examined claims from the North Carolina GOP legislature, which argues that state constitutions and state courts have little or no authority to impose limits on how...

amp.cnn.com

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Elections Opening in Moore v. Harper

The case is about democracy, but not in the way critics claim.

www.wsj.com

“The panicked reaction to Moore v Harper is unconvincing. A legislature is the most Democratic branch of government. How is it vital for Democracy to let a state court re-write a voting law passed by elected legislators?”

because gerrymandering the shit out of voting districts to give yourself an advantage is an awesome way to make sure voters feel that their voice is heard.

Disenfranchising voters everywhere...the republican way.

 

[TMFT]

because gerrymandering the shit out of voting districts to give yourself an advantage is an awesome way to make sure voters feel that their voice is heard.

Disenfranchising voters everywhere...the republican way.

To be fair, no side has clean hands with gerrymandering.

If you've never seen how the people who draw the districts go about doing it it's scary. They have precinct data & trends zeroed in as far as you can go. Computers do all the hard work giving them exactly what they want in their districts. Doesn't inspire much confidence in the process.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

To be fair, no side has clean hands with gerrymandering.

If you've never seen how the people who draw the districts go about doing it it's scary. They have precinct data & trends zeroed in as far as you can go. Computers do all the hard work giving them exactly what they want in their districts. Doesn't inspire much confidence in the process.

True, but just one side trying to make it even easier.

They should just reset all districts to how they were originally then never allow them to be changed again. Easy solution that isn't partisan.

 

[TMFT]

True, but just one side trying to make it even easier.

They should just reset all districts to how they were originally then never allow them to be changed again. Easy solution that isn't partisan.

I like the idea in principle but it would end up offending one person, one vote principles as populations shift.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm clear it's not a race case. Those cases just exemplify situations where duly passed state legislation (e.g., poll taxes & grandfather clauses) having to do with voting was struck down on constitutional principles.

It's all much more of a grey area than you let on. For example, a district that has a large majority black population that happens to vote very strongly Democratic could ostensibly be cracked because of party (which would be okay) and not race (which is not okay) to avoid a problem.

At any rate, feel free to keep talking down to everyone who disagrees with you. This whole ISL theory is junk that is trying to get an in on one specific issue and then trying to expand it to much more nefarious ends.

Yes, SCOTUS, will strike down any state law that is unconstitutional. That’s one thing the 14th Amendment has done.

The question is, is gerrymandering a constitutional issue? In other words, does being a Democrat give one the same equal protection as being a Black? We will see.

Im not talking down. I just talk. If you think I’m talking down to you, that’s on you.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There was an interesting question by Roberts, can a governor veto a legislature on elections. Using the strict wording test the answer has to be no, the clause specifically says that state legislatures have power, the word "governor" does not appear any more than the word "court". But NC GOP said of course governors can veto. Isn't that a problem for NC GOP?

The argument that the state legislature can make decisions free of judicial review and free of state constitution constraints sounds crazy. I'm not sure why free of governors was a bridge too far for them.

That’s a pretty nifty hair Roberts split. If I was arguing the case my response is would be that a governor‘s signature is part of the legislative process. The argument should be in terms of the legislative branch having exclusive authority over district lines.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That’s a oretty nifty hair Roberts split. If I was arguing the case my response is would be that a governor‘s signature is part of the legislative process. The argument should be in terms of the legislative branch having exclusive authority over district lines.

But the constitution does not say "legislative process". It says "shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature". The word process does not appear. The people making the argument are using the plain language argument, given that you are splitting the hair. The plain language reading is clear, "by the legislature".

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The question is, is gerrymandering a constitutional issue? In other words, does being a Democrat give one the same equal protection as being a Black? We will see.

I would argue the concept of one man one vote invalidates gerrymandering as the entire point of gerrymandering is to dilute some votes while making other votes worth more.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

I like the idea in principle but it would end up offending one person, one vote principles as populations shift.

It would probably be more fair still though because politicians can't be trusted to keep politics out of it. Lesser of 2 evils pretty much.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I would argue the concept of one man one vote invalidates gerrymandering as the entire point of gerrymandering is to dilute some votes while making other votes worth more.

You are begging the question. The districts are roughly equal in population, so one man one vote isn’t the issue. The issue is whether being a member of a political party deserves constitutional protection.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

But the constitution does not say "legislative process". It says "shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature". The word process does not appear. The people making the argument are using the plain language argument, given that you are splitting the hair. The plain language reading is clear, "by the legislature".

I know that. I still think all of that means is legislative branch.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You are begging the question. The districts are roughly equal in population, so one man one vote isn’t the issue. The issue is whether being a member of a political party deserves constitutional protection.

It is the issue in that representative government needs to be, well, representative.

34 states require contiguity. That means 16 do not. Would saying "all Democrats in this state vote in one district no matter where they live" be illegal in a state that does not require contiguity? Heck, would it be illegal in a state that does require it since the argument is the state legislature can override the state constitution?

We may have just cracked the code on the perfect gerrymander.

 

[cosmickid]

Takeaways from Moore v. Harper, the historic Supreme Court arguments on election rules

Arguments in the Supreme Court's blockbuster election rules case played out for more than three hours on Wednesday as the justices examined claims from the North Carolina GOP legislature, which argues that state constitutions and state courts have little or no authority to impose limits on how...

amp.cnn.com

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Elections Opening in Moore v. Harper

The case is about democracy, but not in the way critics claim.

www.wsj.com

“The panicked reaction to Moore v Harper is unconvincing. A legislature is the most Democratic branch of government. How is it vital for Democracy to let a state court re-write a voting law passed by elected legislators?”

An opposing view from someone every bit as knowledgeable and qualified as the WSJ opinion board...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It is the issue in that representative government needs to be, well, representative.

34 states require contiguity. That means 16 do not. Would saying "all Democrats in this state vote in one district no matter where they live" be illegal in a state that does not require contiguity? Heck, would it be illegal in a state that does require it since the argument is the state legislature can override the state constitution?

We may have just cracked the code on the perfect gerrymander.

Beats me. If the population is roughly proportional, and there is no demonstrable minority discrimination, what is the constitutional problem with your example?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Beats me. If the population is roughly proportional, and there is no demonstrable minority discrimination, what is the constitutional problem with your example?

You guys seem to be ignoring the issue. It was the state constitution that was violated, not the federal. NC is putting forward the argument that their legislature is not subject to their own constitution on issues of federal elections.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You guys seem to be ignoring the issue. It was the state constitution that was violated, not the federal. NC is putting forward the argument that their legislature is not subject to their own constitution on issues of federal elections.

IANAL, but for the sake of this being a completely state related issue, why should the Supreme Court intervene at all if the state issue does not violate any federally protected rights under the constitution?

So again, not being a constitutional scholar, couldn't this just get kicked back as "This is NC's problem and we aren't the right forum"?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You guys seem to be ignoring the issue. It was the state constitution that was violated, not the federal. NC is putting forward the argument that their legislature is not subject to their own constitution on issues of federal elections.

You are correct. SCOTUS took the Federal constitution out of the picture a few years ago. IIRC, the issue under the state constitution is pretty much the same as the federal. As SCOTUS considers the scope of state court judicial review, I think the issues plays out the same.

There is a lot of room to wiggle here. I think we will have a plurality opinion.

 

[UncleMark]

IANAL, but for the sake of this being a completely state related issue, why should the Supreme Court intervene at all if the state issue does not violate any federally protected rights under the constitution?

IANAL either, but my understanding is that they're being asked to decide if a very narrow reading of the Federal Constitution's Elections Clause -- which say that the state Legislatures determine how elections are run -- precludes the state courts from applying judicial review to whatever the state legislatures come up with. That would be a huge leap and would overturn a lot of precedent.

So again, not being a constitutional scholar, couldn't this just get kicked back as "This is NC's problem and we aren't the right forum"?

That's what should have happened if the Court wasn't interested in breaking new ground here. It appears the radicals on the Court are at least willing to give some credence to this cockamamie theory, or they wouldn't have taken the case in the first place.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Beats me. If the population is roughly proportional, and there is no demonstrable minority discrimination, what is the constitutional problem with your example?

I don't view politics as a game to simply be won or lost. Your view sure sounds like "use the power of the office to screw over the opponent as much as possible to ensure your side keeps winning". That is NOT what I believe government is about nor should it be about that. The government should not have its thumb on the scales of elections. All legal voters vote and decide. That seems to be the very definition of representative democracy. Not "how can CA dilute GOP representation and TX dilute Dem representation as much as possible". Our leaders should NOT be trying to dilute the representation of their own constituency. My representative is assuredly not representing me by trying to make sure my vote is just part of a massive excess vote in a district (or is determined to make it a small but statistically significant minority in a district). The guys paid on OUR dime should represent us and not the parties. Some may think the parties need representation, I will proudly side with people like Washington who did not feel that way.

 

[Stuffshot]

IANAL either, but my understanding is that they're being asked to decide if a very narrow reading of the Federal Constitution's Elections Clause -- which say that the state Legislatures determine how elections are run -- precludes the state courts from applying judicial review to whatever the state legislatures come up with. That would be a huge leap and would overturn a lot of precedent.



That's what should have happened if the Court wasn't interested in breaking new ground here. It appears the radicals on the Court are at least willing to give some credence to this cockamamie theory, or they wouldn't have taken the case in the first place.

Depends which Court radicals you mean.

Long Dong Thomas's unnecessary verbiage in Dobbs proposes to reverse all the SC's social rulings for decades (including the one regarding same-sex marriage) except the one dealing with interracial marriage, which he doesn't mention. We assume his white wife agrees.

This is what Republicans do (take principled stands until it affects Republicans), so maybe Long Dong Thomas is not really a radical Republican.

 

[UncleMark]

Long Dong Thomas's unnecessary verbiage in Dobbs proposes to reverse all the SC's social rulings for decades (including the one regarding same-sex marriage) except the one dealing with interracial marriage, which he doesn't mention. We assume his white wife agrees.

What are the chances of Alito doing a historical analysis and deciding that there's no Constitutional basis for Loving?

 

[Stuffshot]

You are correct. SCOTUS took the Federal constitution out of the picture a few years ago. IIRC, the issue under the state constitution is pretty much the same as the federal. As SCOTUS considers the scope of state court judicial review, I think the issues plays out the same.

There is a lot of room to wiggle here. I think we will have a plurality opinion.

Huh?

How do those "originalists" and "textualists" now or earlier on the Supreme Court take the federal Constitution out of the picture (as you claim), when the Elections Clause clearly states: "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

When you solve this one, I'd love to hear how you explain why it's OK for the Supreme Court to say personal protection is one of the original goals of the Second Amendment, which doesn't mention that at all.

 

[Stuffshot]

What are the chances of Alito doing a historical analysis and deciding that there's no Constitutional basis for Loving?

Assuming there is some way to know in advance that is definitely going to be a majority opinion of the Supreme Court, in that case, I'd pay $10,000 to Long Dong's favorite charity to let me sit in on the live pre-opinion SC justice conference where each justice explains how he/she is going to vote and why.

After such a ruling became/becomes official and unchallengeable, I'd pay another $10,000 for the exclusive rights to hear Long Dong's white wife explain her legal views why Loving v. Virginia was correctly decided in the first place and to which political candidates she plans to donate her millions in the future to preserve the legality of her interracial marriage to Long Dong Thomas.

When Republicans have personal issues at stake, they seem to find ways to adjust their principles (and money).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What are the chances of Alito doing a historical analysis and deciding that there's no Constitutional basis for Loving?

Zero. You can’t define a crime based upon the color of the skin of the offender. That’s basic stuff.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't view politics as a game to simply be won or lost. Your view sure sounds like "use the power of the office to screw over the opponent as much as possible to ensure your side keeps winning". That is NOT what I believe government is about nor should it be about that. The government should not have its thumb on the scales of elections. All legal voters vote and decide. That seems to be the very definition of representative democracy. Not "how can CA dilute GOP representation and TX dilute Dem representation as much as possible". Our leaders should NOT be trying to dilute the representation of their own constituency. My representative is assuredly not representing me by trying to make sure my vote is just part of a massive excess vote in a district (or is determined to make it a small but statistically significant minority in a district). The guys paid on OUR dime should represent us and not the parties. Some may think the parties need representation, I will proudly side with people like Washington who did not feel that way.

Still begging the question. You keep assuming “diluting representation” has to do with political parties. It doesn’t. I live in an overwhelming democratic district. I don’t view my GOP vote as being diluted at all. It counts as much as the next guy’s.

 

[UncleMark]

Obviously a slanted piece, but this provides a good overview of the case.

The Supreme Court’s Most Conservative Justices Got Outplayed on Wednesday

Great lawyering—and, surprisingly, Amy Coney Barrett—debunked a legal theory designed to subvert democracy.

slate.com

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Still begging the question. You keep assuming “diluting representation” has to do with political parties. It doesn’t. I live in an overwhelming democratic district. I don’t view my GOP vote as being diluted at all. It counts as much as the next guy’s.

If dilution isn't happening why do our idiot parties do it? They obviously believe they are diluting power.

The supreme court believes it? Why is it illegal to gerrymander Blacks so they don't have power? If dilution isn't happening, what is the reason?