Well, it’s possible.
I don’t think there is anything preventing a state to award all EVs to the winner, nor dividing them up based on vote percentage.... Federalism at work. Nationalism isn’t what the constitution demands in all issues, actually, only a few enumerated powers.
No doubt, those fringe legal concepts can be easily found in the Constitution of the United States. The elite establishment wants to destroy such fringe ideas.
I stopped reading at this point. “Central to the petitioners’ argument is the so-called “independent state legislature” theory — a fringe legal concept pushed by a small group of conservative advocates that would give state legislatures broad authority to run federal elections without the traditional oversight from a state constitution or judiciary, whom these advocates argue have no right to intrude on elected representatives.”
There’s nothing “fringe” about the US Constitution.
The Democrats would be careful for what they ask. Illinois implemented an extreme gerrymander for the 2022 elections.
Its not a theory. Read the Elections Clause of the US Constitution. There is zero room for doubt. The legislature makes all election laws. There is no room for the judicial branch - they are trying to butt into an area the Constitution clearly reserves for the Legislature.
Oh and any orders by governors concerning elections laws? Unconstitutional. Any agreements entered into by secretaries of state? Unconstitutional.
Why can’t they hear it NOW????? Have an emergency summer session!
Typical:
If it’s unConstitutional and favors the Left it’s okay.
If it’s Constitutional and favors the right, it’s a coup.
The party in power gets some perks, and setting up the
districts is how it has always been done.
The Democrats are upset because they don’t run every
district in the nation. They’re tying to fix that.
This judge must be all of 21.
CAROLINA JOURNAL...John Locke Society
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed without comment Thursday to take up a dispute involving N.C. election maps. Justices will consider the case Moore v. Harper after the court returns from a summer break.
Justices will decide “Whether a State’s judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the ‘Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives … prescribed … by the Legislature thereof,’ and replace them with regulations of the state courts’ own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a ‘fair’ or ‘free’ election,” according to the petition N.C. legislative leaders submitted to the nation’s highest court.
State legislative leaders had filed a petition March 17 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. That paperwork arrived 10 days after the court had voted, 6-3, to reject an emergency petition. An emergency petition could have blocked the current election map from being used for 2022 U.S. House contests.
On March 7, Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that he agreed with dissenting Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas that the court should address the issue of state courts’ role in addressing state legislatures’ decisions about redistricting.
It takes “yes” votes from four of the nine justices for the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear a case.
“The Constitution directs that the manner of federal elections shall ‘be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,’” according to legislative leaders’ original petition. “’The Constitution provides that state legislatures’ — not ‘state judges’ — ‘bear primary responsibility for setting election rules,’ including the rules establishing the shape of congressional districts.”
State legislative leaders criticized the N.C. Supreme Court’s actions in the redistricting dispute. “Yet in the decision below, the North Carolina Supreme Court decreed that the 2022 election and all upcoming congressional elections in North Carolina were not to be held in the ‘Manner’ ‘prescribed … by the Legislature thereof,’ but rather in the manner prescribed by the state’s judicial branch.”
The state Supreme Court issued a Feb. 4 ruling tossing out state lawmakers’ map for congressional elections. “And after Petitioners — North Carolina legislators, including the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate — engaged in a good-faith effort to craft a congressional map that would be valid under the state supreme court’s order, the state trial court rejected that map, too.”
“Instead, the trial court mandated the use of a new map in the 2022 election that had been created by a group of Special Masters and their team of assistants — who, to make matters worse, designed their own, judicially-crafted map after engaging in ex parte communications with experts for the plaintiffs. The North Carolina Supreme Court refused to stay this decision, thereby authorizing this judge-made map to govern the 2022 election cycle.”
“If a redistricting process more starkly contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause exists, it is hard to imagine it,” the legislative leaders’ brief concluded.
Opposing briefs filed May 20 by the legislature’s critics had asked the Supreme Court not to take the case.
“Petitioners now ask this Court to exercise its [discretionary] certiorari review to invalidate the map the trial court adopted for the 2022 elections on the ground that state courts are forbidden from protecting individuals’ state constitutional rights by reviewing state laws that touch on federal elections, including the enactment of congressional districts,” according to a brief from Common Cause. That left-of-center activist group has challenged election maps drawn by the Republican-led General Assembly for the past decade.
“The way they see it, because the Constitution refers to ‘the Legislature’ of a State setting the time, place, and manner of congressional elections, it precludes state courts from reviewing whether such election-related legislation complies with the State’s own constitution,” the Common Cause brief continued. “Instead, Petitioners would have this Court say that a state legislature has carte blanche in this context — unrestrained by state constitutional limitations and unable to incorporate state courts into the process, even if it passes a statute attempting to do so.”
“As a matter of text, structure, history, precedent, and long-established practice in this country, that is flatly wrong.”
House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, responded Thursday to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.
“This case is not only critical to election integrity in North Carolina, but has implications for the security of elections nationwide,” Moore said in a prepared statement. “On the heels of another victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, I am confident that this court recognizes what our State Supreme Court failed to recognize — that the United States Constitution explicitly gives the General Assembly authority to draw districts and that authority must be recognized.”
No date has been set for oral arguments in the case. It could be among the first cases heard by the court’s newest member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She was sworn into office Thursday, replacing the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer.
Editor’s note: This article was updated at 1 p.m. to include reaction from legislative leaders.
First, unlike our constitutionally enumerated power to vote for federal representatives and senators, the states have never amended the Constitution to give ordinary citizen voters the power to vote for president.
In other words, our politically correct power to vote for presidential candidates is a state power issue.
The problem with our constitutionally unprotected power to vote for president is that it possibly gave renegade Democratic states an excuse for the vote-counting "flexibility" that they needed to allegedly steal the 2020 elections.
Regarding the MSN article, unsurprisingly no reference (correction welcome) to the "long forgotten" 12th Amendment (12A) which is electoral vote procedures.
The bottom line is that the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties have been blatantly ignoring 12A electoral vote procedures for a long time, so-called state winner take all laws unconstitutional imo.
Let's see where Moore v. Harper goes.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Note - the LEGISLATURE
Not the judges, or executives or some other “independent” body.
Not emergency powers because of a pandemic
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.