Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid to Transform Federal Election Law
The fight focused on the Constitution s elections clause, which says the rules for congressional races shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof unless overridden by Congress. A similar provision governs the appointment of presidential electors.
North Carolina Republicans contended the provision meant state courts had little if any role to play in scrutinizing voting maps and other rules crafted by their legislatures for federal elections. In rejecting that argument, Roberts said it couldn t be squared with the court s precedents or historical practice.
Read More:
What Gerrymandering Means and Why It s Here to Stay: QuickTake Roberts qualified the ruling by saying state judges don t have free rein in election cases and may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.
Election-law experts said that language was likely to mean further legal fights, with litigants contending that state supreme courts have overstepped their authority.
But the bar for those lawsuits will be very high, said Cameron Kistler, a lawyer at the nonprofit interest group Protect Democracy. We will see cases, but I think almost certainly unless something really screwy happens, they re going to lose, a lot, Kistler said.
O darn. That’s a L for my pet theory of how the Constitution comes back. Court’s precedents? Historical practice? Pshawww! I could just see the state laboratories of democracy working themselves out as state legislatures competed, vying to outdo each other with their own versions of liberty. But it’s not to be, not to be. Not surprised. Just disappointed.