moore v harper ILD
disambig
ben ginsberg?
amicus
Bob Bauer & Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Election officials need our legal help against repressive laws and personal threats, Wash. Post (Sep. 21, 2021) https://www.washington post.com/opinions/2021/09/07/bauer-ginsbergelection-official-legal-defense-network/ . . . . . . . . . . 23
Bob Bauer & Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Intimidation of election officials in Wisconsin has to stop. It is corrosive to our democracy., Milwaukee J. Sentinel (Dec. 10, 2021, 11:38 AM), https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2021/12 /10/intimidation-wisconsin-election-officialscorrodes-democracy/6452887001/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
an 3 23
no lnx
Why the GOP-dominated North Carolina Supreme Court is likely to uphold partisan gerrymandering: attorney
Alex Henderson
March 21, 2023
:{In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a gerrymandered congressional map drawn by Republicans as a violation of the state's constitution. That case is Harper v. Hall, not to be confused with Moore v. Harper — a separate but related case that has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Since February 2022, there has been a sea change on the North Carolina Supreme Court — which is now dominated by Republicans and has decided to revisit Harper v. Hall. Attorney Shan Wu, a former federal prosecutor, fears that the justices are almost certain to restore the gerrymandered congressional map that was struck down 13 months ago.}:
In an op-ed published by the Daily Beast on March 21, Wu explains, "It’s still the North Carolina Supreme Court, but last year's state elections changed the Court's political majority from Democrat to Republican. Despite the fact that the political affiliation of judges is not a legal basis for overturning cases, that seems to be the only reason the case is being reheard. Sound familiar?"
READ MORE:The independent state legislature Supreme Court case could upend centuries of progress
:{Wu continues, "Recall the dissenting opinion by Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in Dobbs v. Jackson, where the majority struck down the precedent of Roe v. Wade that had stood for a half-century…. The new Republican majority of the North Carolina Supreme Court is following SCOTUS' lead by doing the same thing…. Only twice in the past 30 years has the (North Carolina) High Court granted requests for rehearings."
In law, the Latin term stare decisis means respect for precedent. It means "let the decision rest." When Sen. Susan Collins voted to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, she insisted that he considered Roe v. Wade "settled law." But Collins was wrong. In 2022, Kavanaugh was among the justices who voted to overturn Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization; clearly, "stare decisis" was not a priority for Kavanaugh in that case.}:
On both the North Carolina Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, Wu argues, respect for precedent is falling by the wayside.
"The underlying rationales between the state and SCOTUS matters are the same: Republican majorities want the power to do what they please with election laws," the former federal prosecutor points out.
READ MORE:Robert Reich: Electoral College reform is 'urgent' as the Supreme Court considers 'bonkers' election theory
In Moore v. Harper, North Carolina Republicans are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the "independent state legislature theory" — a far-right fringe legal concept claiming that only state legislatures should be allowed to make decisions on elections. According to the most severe form of ISL, a state's judicial and executive branches should be excluded from election-related decisions — only state legislators are allowed.
"The position taken in the North Carolina rehearing — as well as the ILST argument before SCOTUS —would eliminate the state courts and the governors, leaving only state legislatures to make these decisions," Wu observes. "Recognizing the impact of the North Carolina Supreme Court rehearings, SCOTUS has asked for additional briefing from both the Justice Department and the parties petitioning the nation's highest court for additional briefings on how the decision to rehear the cases may affect the decision in SCOTUS."
READ MORE: How John Roberts may slow-walk American democracy right off the cliff
Read Shan Wu’s full op-ed for the Daily Beast at this link.
From Your Site Articles
'An existential threat': Legal expert breaks down the Supreme Court case that could radically reshape US elections ›
The Supreme Court gets to decide if Republicans can cheat to win elections ›
Why we have the right-wing majority of the US Supreme Court to thank for GOP’s House takeover ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Opinion | Racial Gerrymandering in North Carolina - The New York ... ›
North Carolina court appears poised to overrule itself in ... ›
North Carolina's extreme new gerrymander in House elections ... ›
an ah 12 22
In 2023, there will be a lot of gridlock in Washington, D.C., with Republicans having a small majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while Democrats will still control the White House and the U.S. Senate. Democrats performed much better than expected in the 2022 midterms, losing the House but slightly increasing their narrow majority in the Senate and winning key gubernatorial races in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona and other swing states.
But even if the United States had taken a hard-left turn in 2020 and 2022 — even if Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont were president and Democrats had large majorities in both branches of Congress going in 2023 — the country would still have its most radical-right Supreme Court in generations.And the High Court won’t be moving to the center, let alone the left, anyone soon. It’s entirely possible that all three of the Gen-X justices President Donald Trump appointed (Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch) will still be on the Court 30 years from now.
The Court’s far-right turn is the focus of articles published by the New York Times and the conservative website The Bulwark on December 19. In the Times piece, journalist Adam Liptak emphasizes that today’s Supreme Court wields more power than other branches of the federal government.
READ MORE: **How John Roberts may slow-walk American democracy right off the cliff**
“The conventional critique of the Supreme Court these days is that it has lurched to the right and is out of step with the public on many issues,” Liptak explains. “That is true so far as it goes. But a burst of recent legal scholarship makes a deeper point, saying the current Court is distinctive in a different way: It has rapidly been accumulating power at the expense of every other part of the government.”
Liptak notes what Stanford University law professor Mark A. Lemley had to say about the High Court in an article published by the Harvard Law Review on November 20.
Lemley wrote, “The Court has not been favoring one branch of government over another, or favoring states over the federal government, or the rights of people over governments. Rather, it is withdrawing power from all of them at once…. It is a Court that is consolidating its power, systematically undercutting any branch of government, federal or state, that might threaten that power, while at the same time undercutting individual rights.”
Lemley’s article was headlined “The Imperial Supreme Court” — a characterization that Liptak doesn’t disagree with. And Liptak points out that according to Rebecca L. Brown and Lee Epstein of the University of Southern California (USC), the High Court “is establishing a position of judicial supremacy over the president and Congress.”
Liptak also quotes University of California, Berkeley law professor Tejas N. Narechania, who wrote, “The Roberts Court, more than any other Court in history, uses its docket-setting discretion to select cases that allow it to revisit and overrule precedent.”
In an article she wrote for The Bulwark, University of Baltimore law professor Kimberly Wehle stresses that the Roberts Court has been showing a total disregard for precedent.Discussing the case Merrill v. Milligan, Wehle points out that how the Court ruled in the past isn’t a major concern for this edition of the Court.
“After the Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade last term,” Wehle writes, “it’s clear that the Court’s majority is not shy about overturning precedent, however entrenched it may be…. At issue in Merrill, which was argued on October 4, is whether Alabama’s newly redrawn congressional map illegally discriminates against Black voters under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). A three-judge lower-court panel, including two Trump appointees, agreed with the plaintiffs, deeming the Alabama map illegal and mandating the creation of a new one. If the Supreme Court sides with Alabama, it would mean another reversal of established precedent interpreting Section 2 of the VRA in a 1986 case called Thornburg v. Gingles. Even worse, it would be another serious gut-punch to Congress’ ability to pass laws remedying systemic discrimination, this time in voting.”
Another current Supreme Court case that worries Wehle is Moore v. Harper, which deals with partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and a far-right legal idea known as the independent state legislature (ISL) theory. The ISL, in its most severe form, argues that only state legislatures have a right govern elections at the state level — not governors, not state supreme courts, not judges.
“The implications of Moore are even graver than those in Milligan,” Wehle warns. “The legislators are arguing that under the U.S. Constitution, only state legislatures or Congress can decide the rules governing federal elections — state courts and state constitutions are meaningless. This independent state legislature theory was repeatedly raised with no success by Trump and his supporters seeking to overturn the election in 2020.”
Wehle continues, “But what was unthinkable then — a ruling that takes elections away from voters by mandating as a matter of constitutional law that state legislatures have unfettered power to ultimately decide them — is very real now…. If the independent state legislature theory nonetheless carries the day, it would mean that a state legislature could violate the very state constitution that created it. Voters would, once again, be the losers at the Supreme Court — despite multiple laws designed to protect them.”
Wehle wraps up her article by arguing that today’s Supreme Court is more radical than conservative.
“Alas, the conservative justices on this Court have already shown their hand,” Wehle writes. “They don’t care about precedent, let alone intellectual integrity. As a result, Americans may be in for a rude awakening. Indeed, perhaps it’s time to retire the label ‘conservative’ when referring to the majority of this Court. Each term gives further evidence of its decidedly unconstrained unconservatism. And the future of our precious Constitution is in their hands.”
an 12 22
Conservative donors are directing "tens of millions of dollars" in dark money to groups backing Republican lawmakers in favor of a U.S. Supreme Court case that could negatively impact American voter laws.
In a new analysis published by The Guardian, reporter Peter Stone offered a breakdown of Moore v Harper and its potential impact. "The donors backed several groups that have filed supreme court amicus briefs in support of North Carolina legislators in Moore v Harper, according to a recent analysis," Stone wrote.
He added, "They are pushing for a ruling that would take ultimate decisions about voting rights and congressional gerrymandering away from state courts and hand those powers to state legislatures, of which Republicans now control the majority."
Further elaborating on the case, Stone wrote:
"Sparked by a North Carolina gerrymandering fight, Moore v Harper has attracted strong opposition from many liberal and some conservative legal experts, who call it a partisan attack on voting rights by prominent conservative groups. Opponents of the case say they’re using a discredited legal theory to boost GOP political fortunes in coming elections."
He also noted, "Eight conservative groups that submitted amicus briefs in the supreme court case have received close to $90m from dark money donors since 2016, according to Accountable.US, a liberal-leaning watchdog group that tracks government corruption."
In the wake of the latest developments, conservative groups have faced criticism for their efforts. "Critics of the right’s drive to push the independent state legislature theory note the strong influence of well-financed conservative groups along with several like-minded justices," he wrote.
Speaking to The Guardian, Thomas Wolf, deputy director at the Brennan Center for Justice, also weighed in with his concerns saying, “The ISLT [independent state legislature theory] has been fueled by several conservative justices’ dissents, and other statements, coupled with amicus briefs and public arguments supporting the theory from think tanks, litigation shops, and partisan political organizations.”
READ MORE: Mysterious dark money group got $22 million to get Trump SCOTUS pick Kavanaugh confirmed
===
an 12 22
Wednesday, December 7, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in the case Moore v. Harper — which deals with partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and a far-right legal idea known as the independent state legislature (ISL) theory. The ISL, in its most extreme version, argues that only state legislatures should have any say in how elections are governed in individual states — not governors, not judges, not state supreme courts.
Critics of the ISL have been stressing that totally removing a state’s executive and judicial branches from the equation is anti-checks and balances and anti-democracy. It remains to be seen how the High Court will ultimately rule in Moore v. Harper, but legal writer Joe Patrice, in an article published by Above the Law on December 7, stresses that some of the best questioning during the oral arguments came from President Joe Biden’s appointee, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“Going into this morning’s oral argument on Moore v. Harper,” Patrice explains, “it didn’t really seem like free and fair democratic elections had much of a future in this country. If one were so inclined, the smart money said the Supreme Court would functionally cancel democratic elections…. Across hours of oral argument, Justice Jackson asked the most succinct and ultimately damning question that might save the day. Or at least minimize the impact.”
During the oral arguments, Jackson obviously had a problem with the idea of excluding a state’s executive and judicial branches from governing elections.
The Biden appointee told her colleagues, “I guess I don’t understand how you can cut the state constitution out of the equation when it is giving the state legislature authority to exercise the legislative power.”
With that comment, Patrice argues, Jackson showed just how “absurd” the ISL is.
“She actually asked this question in different phrasings a few times, but it’s really the only question anyone needs to answer,” Patrice explains. “If state constitutions create state legislatures, then how can state legislatures violate state constitutions? It ceases to be a constitutionally ordained legislature at that point!”
Patrice continues, “It’s a chicken and egg problem — except it’s more like which came first, the chicken or my dinner tonight — with a single obvious answer. If the state constitution sets guardrails of voting rights and the proper deference required to courts and the executive, then the legislature can only work within that. The GOP argued that, because the word ‘Legislature’ is in the U.S. Constitution, it elevates state legislatures above the constraints of their own state laws for this purpose, but no one — original or otherwise — ever entertained that idea. Indeed, it would be absurd to think the Framers, at the time, intended to dictate to the states how their governments should function. ‘Legislature’ is whatever the state chooses to create with all the checks and balances attendant to its own laws — just like it’s been for over 200 years.”
Patrice also praised attorney Neal Katyal, who gave the High Court justices aggressive oral arguments against the ISL.
“At the top of Katyal’s argument,” Patrice notes, “he cited the two centuries of election law and declared that it would be ‘a whole lot of wrong’ if ‘Legislature’ meant what the GOP asked for as opposed to how Justice Jackson posed her question…. Make no mistake, Chief Justice Roberts is on record buying into a watered-down version of this theory and will, after today’s battering, probably cobble something together that shields Republican legislatures without straining the outer bounds of basic notions of constitutional governance.”
Patrice adds, “But whatever compromise the conservatives try to mold will remain haunted by Jackson’s straightforward question. Which came first, the state constitution or the state legislature? It’s the constitution. It’s always going to be the constitution.”
READ MORE:**'Nightmare scenario' if Supreme Court approves 'oddball' conservative election changes: analyst**
:{
}:
an 11 22
On Wednesday, December 7, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Moore v. Harper, a case that deals with partisan gerrymandering and redistricting in North Carolina as well as a far-right legal idea known as the independent state legislature theory (often abbreviated as ISL). It is the ISL part that has civil libertarians especially worried; the ISL, in its most severe form, argues that only state legislatures should be allowed to govern the administration of elections in individual states — not governors, not judges, not state supreme courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the ISL over the years. But civil libertarians and legal experts fear that if the radical-right 2022 edition of the High Court accepts the ISL as valid, it could have dire consequences for democracy in the United States. Imagine a scenario in which a Democratic presidential candidate wins Wisconsin, for example, in 2024 or 2028 but MAGA Republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature want to give the state’s electoral votes to the Republican nominee who lost; such a scenario, according to civil libertarians and experts on constitutional law, is not far-fetched if the High Court accepts the ISL in its most radical form.
Moore v. Harper isn’t about former President Donald Trump per se. But in an article published by The Atlantic on November 29, legal expert Quinta Jurecic (who is a fellow at the Brookings Institution) emphasizes that the case reflects the influence of Trump and his MAGA movement.
“At the center of Moore is a ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court throwing out an aggressively gerrymandered congressional map put together by the state’s Republican legislature, which the Court found violated the state constitution,” Jurecic explains. “The GOP lawmakers are now challenging that ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing that, under the independent state legislature theory, the state court lacked the authority to involve itself in the legislature’s work…. The Constitution gives states the power to decide how they select members of Congress and pick presidential electors.”
Jurecic continues, “Proponents of the independent state legislature theory build their argument around the fact that the specific constitutional text in question refers not to states generally, but instead, to ‘the legislatures thereof.’ Thus, they argue, when administering federal elections, state legislatures are, to some extent, exempt from normal constraints; under this theory, other state-level entities, such as courts and election officials, would be restricted in their ability to check the legislature or act without its approval…. Moore involves only the constitutional language concerning the selection of members of Congress, but a Supreme Court ruling adopting some iteration of the independent state legislature theory could shape how federal courts understand state administration of presidential elections as well.”
The ISL, Jurecic notes, is highly controversial in legal circles. For example, Eric Holder, who served as U.S. attorney general under President Barack Obama, has warned that Moore — depending on how the High Court rules — could pose “an existential threat to our democracy.” And Rick Hasen, an expert on election law, has warned that “a muscular reading of the independent state legislature theory would provide a fig leaf for state legislators to try to reverse presidential election results and overturn the will of the people in a presidential election.”
Jurecic points out that “Trump’s attempted coup in 2020 depended in part on a bizarre overextension” of the ISL.
“John Eastman, the legal scholar advising Trump on the president’s efforts to overturn the election, proposed, in a now-notorious memo, that the Constitution provided legislatures in swing states with the power to simply toss out (Joe) Biden electors in favor of slates supporting Trump,” Jurecic observes. “Eastman himself has filed an amicus brief in Moore, though it is far less outrageous — adopting the maximalist view of the independent state legislature theory instead of his previous, even more extreme interpretation.”
Jurecic wraps up her piece by writing that “the picture is not entirely bleak” when it comes to Moore v. Harper and the wellbeing of U.S. democracy.
“The results of the 2022 midterms substantially limited the ability of election deniers to upend the 2024 presidential vote: Swing-state voters rejected Trump-backed candidates for governor and secretary of state who had expressed a willingness to meddle with elections going forward,” Jurecic explains. “And if the lame-duck Congress can pass reforms to the Electoral Count Act, the statute that governs Congress’ certification of the electoral vote and that Trump sought to exploit on January 6, this would close off avenues for rogue state legislatures operating under an extreme understanding of the independent state legislature theory to disrupt the 2024 certification. Still, Moore is a reminder of just how wobbly the guardrails protecting American democracy have become.”
READ MORE:**Are SCOTUS Republicans in on a plot to end Democratic presidencies forever?**
===
an 922
According to CNN's Zachary Wolf, the Supreme Court could throw the 2024 presidential election into total chaos if they give their blessing to an "oddball" legal theory proposed by the same conservatives who attempted to overturn the 2020 election.
At issue, while the House and Senate work on a bill that would clarify how votes from the states are tabulated and ways in which they can be contested, is a legal theory that suggests the federal government can't control how state legislatures run and report their elections and blocks the courts from stepping in.
As Wolf wrote, "The Supreme Court, meanwhile, could be headed in the direction of conjuring anti-democratic nightmares if its conservative majority chooses to bless part of the oddball legal theory behind that very same push to overturn the 2020 election," before adding, "Some Republican lawmakers and the lawyer who conjured then-President Donald Trump's effort to stay in power despite the 2020 election results argue that the Constitution actually suggests state legislatures are independent and disembodied from the rest of their governments to rule over federal elections in their states without state court review."
"The case at hand, Moore v. Harper, has to do with North Carolina's new congressional map, which was gerrymandered by the state's GOP legislature and then redrawn by the state's courts -- which made the map more favorable to Democrats," he wrote. "Since the Constitution doesn't specifically say state courts can oversee state legislatures on the matter, supporters of the idea want legislatures to have new power over congressional map."
According to Eliza Sweren-Becker of the Brennan Center for Justice, a fierce critic of the so-called "independent state legislature theory," the Supreme Court could introduce chaos into every national election if they agree with the theory.
Saying the new rules would lead to "undemocratic shenanigans," she added, "We've seen over the past year more states introducing, and in some instances passing, legislation that would create the risk of election sabotage and election interference."
According to Wolf, "That would be the nightmare scenario: The House and Senate limit their own ability to question election results put forward by states, and the Supreme Court gives state legislatures new power to engage in election shenanigans."
ref cnn
no lnx
Here's a nightmare scenario for election reform
Zach Wolf
Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN
Sat September 24, 2022
(CNN)Ghosts of the 2020 election continue to haunt the US system of government.
Exorcism. The House and Senate have a path in mind to exorcise the January 6, 2021, insurrection with a law to clarify among other things that, no, the vice president cannot simply ignore certified election results and, no, states cannot send competing slates of electors to Washington.
Embrace. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, could be headed in the direction of conjuring anti-democratic nightmares if its conservative majority chooses to bless part of the oddball legal theory behind that very same push to overturn the 2020 election.
Disembodied legislatures. Some Republican lawmakers and the lawyer who conjured then-President Donald Trump's effort to stay in power despite the 2020 election results argue that the Constitution actually suggests state legislatures are independent and disembodied from the rest of their governments to rule over federal elections in their states without state court review.
That the conservative Supreme Court justices who pride themselves on their fidelity to the Constitution's text want to hear more about re-textualizing this single word, "legislatures," after more than 200 years, makes the Constitution feel creaky and stuccoed over rather than like the solid bedrock of Western liberal democracy.
Electoral Count Act reform has bipartisan momentum
On Capitol Hill, bipartisan proposals in both the House and Senate would upgrade the Electoral Count Act, a confusing and poorly worded law from horse-and-buggy times -- when there were actual disputed elections -- that dictates how Electoral College votes are gathered and counted.
The House passed its version this week. The Senate version, which has 10 Republicans on board to defeat a filibuster, will likely see a vote later this year. The two sides could reconcile their differences after Election Day.
Politifact stacks the competing House and Senate bills against each other and finds a lot of similarity. The big differences lie in the threshold for how many lawmakers on Capitol Hill it takes to object to a state's electors and what might constitute a "failed election," calling a state's election results into question. The House bill also gives states more time to settle election lawsuits and disputes.
CNN's report has more details:
The House bill would require the support of one-third of each chamber to raise an objection and a majority of votes for that objection to be sustained. It outlines five specific and narrow reasons for raising objections. The Senate version of the bill only requires one-fifth of support in each chamber (to raise an objection) and does not restrict reasons for objections.
Currently, only one member from each chamber is required to object and there are no restrictions on the types of objections that can be brought up. That's why 147 Republicans across both chambers were able to object when Congress met to certify the election on January 6, 2021, and cited various reasons for doing so.
Read more about the bill the House passed.
Electoral Count Act reform won't be a very bipartisan idea for long
The time is now for supporters to clarify these things, since none of the House Republicans who supported their bill will be in office come January.
All nine of the Republicans who supported the House plan were either defeated in GOP primaries or are not running for reelection.
Most of the Republicans who publicly support the Senate reform bill are retiring, although Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Trump ally, is a co-sponsor.
Meanwhile, a large portion of the Republicans who will be on the ballot in November (at least 11 candidates for secretary of state positions and 22 candidates for governor) have spread, endorsed or shown sympathy to 2020 election denialism.
Potentially redefining the Constitution
While the House and Senate are looking at cleaning up the procedure, the Supreme Court will hear a case this term that could redefine the Constitution entirely, perhaps with unintended consequences.
Born from Trump's failed effort to overturn the 2020 election, the so-called independent state legislature theory says that, despite the history and legal precedent, the Constitution says state legislatures shall pick the time, place and manner of elections for House and Senate and that Congress can alter them.
The case at hand, Moore v. Harper, has to do with North Carolina's new congressional map, which was gerrymandered by the state's GOP legislature and then redrawn by the state's courts -- which made the map more favorable to Democrats. Since the Constitution doesn't specifically say state courts can oversee state legislatures on the matter, supporters of the idea want legislatures to have new power over congressional maps.
If the Supreme Court gives them new power, the thinking goes that state legislatures, often under one-party control, would be unchecked by the normal equilibrium and could act in unexpected ways to influence elections.
Read an in-depth report on the independent state legislature theory from CNN's Ariane de Vogue.
What to make of the Supreme Court hearing this case
I talked to Eliza Sweren-Becker of the Brennan Center for Justice, who is a fierce critic of the independent state legislature theory and testified before Congress about the theory earlier this year. She cautioned we should not assume the Supreme Court will endorse it simply because four justices agreed to hear the case and several have expressed an openness to the theory.
"There is a mountain of material, of scholarship, thinking and analysis, particularly of the founding era, reflecting that the independent state legislature theory is simply an incorrect reading of the Constitution," Sweren-Becker said.
Unintended consequences
The Supreme Court is considering the independent state legislature theory in the context of congressional maps. And there it could come back to bite Republicans.
Princeton University professor Sam Wang, who tracks the gerrymandering of congressional districts by political parties, argues Republicans might not exactly run the table in a scenario where legislatures were given new power to rewrite congressional maps. In fact, in several scenarios, he found no real change in the balance of power on Capitol Hill or the possibility of a Democratic gain of up to nine seats.
Over the past decade, Wang argues in his newsletter, "Republicans have taken a more aggressive approach to redistricting, and in many places they have already maxed out their gains."
Wang said nobody should root for independent state legislatures, which he describes as a "Wild West scenario."
Sweren-Becker said that by cutting state governors and courts largely out of election law, the theory could nullify existing state protections for voters, create chaos for the state officials who administer elections and, importantly, open the door to "undemocratic shenanigans."
"We've seen over the past year more states introducing, and in some instances passing, legislation that would create the risk of election sabotage and election interference," she said.
That would be the nightmare scenario: The House and Senate limit their own ability to question election results put forward by states, and the Supreme Court gives state legislatures new power to engage in election shenanigans.
==