Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Question about Moore v Harper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question about Moore v Harper

    I'm reading about the case the Supreme Court has just accepted, Moore v Harper. Essentially, this is a challenge to a case in North Carolina where the state Supreme Court threw out a gerrymandered map. The case, brought by NC's House Speaker, uses the "independent state legislature theory", that a state legislature has an nearly unlimited right to draw political maps. (Apparently at least four US Supreme Court justices are open to this idea).

    The article mentions that a similar legal theory was behind the push from Trump supporters to try to replace Biden electors in states that did vote for him, with Trump electors. So my question: If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Speaker would this pave the way for legislatures to basically choose electors regardless of who voters voted for?

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...tions-00043471
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  • #2
    If memory serves most states have anti-gerrymandering statutes on their books. I'd have to read up on the case but constitutionally legislatures control elections.

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      If memory serves most states have anti-gerrymandering statutes on their books. I'd have to read up on the case but constitutionally legislatures control elections.
      Gill v. Whitford decided that excessive partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, but they did not actually define what constitutes excessive partisan gerrymandering.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        I'm reading about the case the Supreme Court has just accepted, Moore v Harper. Essentially, this is a challenge to a case in North Carolina where the state Supreme Court threw out a gerrymandered map. The case, brought by NC's House Speaker, uses the "independent state legislature theory", that a state legislature has an nearly unlimited right to draw political maps. (Apparently at least four US Supreme Court justices are open to this idea).

        The article mentions that a similar legal theory was behind the push from Trump supporters to try to replace Biden electors in states that did vote for him, with Trump electors. So my question: If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Speaker would this pave the way for legislatures to basically choose electors regardless of who voters voted for?

        https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...tions-00043471
        In the case of presidential elections, there is actually no provision in the Constitution for the pseudo popular vote, and it would actually be legal for state legislatures to simply choose their electors, which is actually how I would like to see it done because 1) It would restore power to the states; and 2) I think national elections have become far too insecure to trust the results.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

          Gill v. Whitford decided that excessive partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, but they did not actually define what constitutes excessive partisan gerrymandering.
          Gill v. Whitford really just ducked the issue. But the follow-up, Rucho v. Common Cause, had the Supreme Court say that partisan gerrymandering is a non-judiciable issue, essentially meaning that there's no real limits to partisan gerrymandering.

          What states aren't allowed to do is engage in gerrymandering based on things like race. Which is why a bunch of court cases end up being the sides arguing about whether it's partisan gerrymandering or racial gerrymandering that's going on, because one is allowed and the other isn't.

          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          In the case of presidential elections, there is actually no provision in the Constitution for the pseudo popular vote, and it would actually be legal for state legislatures to simply choose their electors, which is actually how I would like to see it done because 1) It would restore power to the states; and 2) I think national elections have become far too insecure to trust the results.
          I think one of the last things we need to do is to give state legislatures even more incentive to engage in gerrymandering, which this would do.

          Though debating the merits is almost superfluous; popular elections are so, well, popular, that I can't see any state legislature ditching them. Maybe some states might adopt something like Maine where the electors are assigned by the "winner" of each district, with the two remaining ones (as the number of electors is the number of congressional districts plus 2) going to whoever won the popular vote in the state. Which still encourages gerrymandering but not quite as much.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            In the case of presidential elections, there is actually no provision in the Constitution for the pseudo popular vote, and it would actually be legal for state legislatures to simply choose their electors, which is actually how I would like to see it done because 1) It would restore power to the states; and 2) I think national elections have become far too insecure to trust the results.
            I'd rather not open up the floodgates for states to decide to try that willynilly on the night of a close election. I don't want a civil war.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

              I'd rather not open up the floodgates for states to decide to try that willynilly on the night of a close election. I don't want a civil war.
              In principle, this already could be done, if the state's existing procedure is to do this. The issue is with a state legislature deciding to take over that authority after the election already took place.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:51 AM
              0 responses
              2 views
              0 likes
              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
              Started by rogue06, Today, 06:57 AM
              1 response
              8 views
              1 like
              Last Post Mountain Man  
              Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 05:22 PM
              2 responses
              31 views
              1 like
              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 03:37 PM
              10 responses
              51 views
              0 likes
              Last Post rogue06
              by rogue06
               
              Started by Gondwanaland, 09-28-2022, 08:05 PM
              30 responses
              195 views
              0 likes
              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
              Working...
              X