Posted on 06/30/2022 2:59:03 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Interesting that the Court will take this up. I wonder what effect it will have on states like CO where reapportionment was given to independent commissions by voters. To complicate that, the legislature voted to put the ballot measure on the ballot that the voters approved.
The districts the independent commission came up with were not nearly as bad last year as the ones ten years ago passed by the D legislature — horrid districts then.
In Texas any district that can be entirely contained in one county must be put into one county. only one district in a county can spill over into other counties, and it has to contain whole counties. For example in the 2002 redistricting my county qualified for 2.4 state representative districts. There were 2 districts entirely in my county and one that was split between my county and a few other whole counties to the north. It makes it pretty much impossible to have multiple districts stretching across the state. I am pretty certain the Illinois gerrymander would violate the Texas constitution if anyone tried to impose a similar system in Texas.
Yeah, like I stated. Winner take all is great if your candidate slides by with a 51% tally.
No, there’s plenty of room for doubt.
What if a state’s constitution says all election laws have to be signed by the governor?
Do you think the states would have ratified a federal constitution saying the state legislature, created by the state constitution, could override that constitution?
The reasonable interpretation is that the reference to “state legislatures” means the state’s legal framework writ large.
No its not the legal framework in general. Its election law. That belongs to the legislature. Its spelled out in the elections clause of the US Constitution.
This is a nonsense headline, of course.
It COULD decide one way, or it could decide the other. Taking the case doesn’t imply anything.
More importantly, it wouldn’t upend anything. The question comes down to whether the courts in a state can impose their own rules about election conduct. Rules that aren’t in the statute. Also, more marginally and unlikely, whether if a legislature chose to assign electors directly, would it need the governor to agree.
I’d assume that any election policy must be according to law. And, therefore, require legislative and executive to execute just like any other power a state wants to exercise. Otherwise, extra legislative acts are tyranny.
Any branch of government may not act alone. Legislative must fully pass an act, the executive must sign it into law and the judiciary may act if the law is improper based on the constitution. Then, the intention must be recycled to make a lawful act, or it dies.
I’m certain we agree.
PA made rules, as I understand it, that were unilateral and not law. Shameful.
OK, that’s basically what I meant.
That belongs to the legislature.
The legislature writes the statutes but they don’t become law until they pass through the process defined by that state’s constitution. Which usually means a signature by the governor, and every law has to be in accordance with the state’s constitution.
I don’t think it’s reasonable that state legislatures could enact laws in direct contravention of their own constitutions.
I think when the framers said state legislatures they effectively meant state laws, which have to be consistent with state constitutions.
The important thing in this context is neither the executive nor the judicial branches get to make election law - as they did in multiple states in 2020……unconstitutionally.
If the state’s constitution or previous legislation, for instance emergency powers laws, give the executive that power I don’t think SCOTUS will second guess.
What I was trying to say was the article was hyperventilating about legislatures being able to change how they choose electors.
It was silly because they have ALWAYS been able to change how electors are chosen and occasionally they do. The court case won’t change that at all.
What it might tamp down on, is judges interfering with legislatures over everything and anything.
Agreed. Plus, rules made by election officials apart from statute are and always ought to be unlawful and legislative bodies must act to quell such nonsense.
I call them the meristocracy.
Is that supposed to be a play on words? Some kind of a clever distortion of "meritocracy?"
What's the joke?
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.