It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.

[link removed]

[link removed]

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.

THE BIGGEST ELECTIONS CASE OF THE YEAR
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a major decision ([link removed]) in a case affecting the future of voting rights, state legislative power and political party influence.

The specifics? In a 6-3 decision, the high court ruled against North Carolina Republicans and the theory of the “independent state legislature doctrine” ([link removed]) — the idea that state legislatures have the right to make election rules with little oversight from state courts. The opinion was in favor of voters and voting rights groups who said the Republican map was rigged unconstitutionally and that courts should be able to hear their case against it.

The opinion keeps the status quo. And in modern politics, that is significant.

Here is a quick breakdown.
* The case is Moore v. Harper. Named for Republican Rep. Timothy Moore ([link removed]) , the North Carolina Speaker of the House, and Becky Harper ([link removed]) , a North Carolina voter who sued the state over congressional maps that she and others decried as partisan gerrymanders .
* The legal questions are large, centered on partisan gerrymandering: Do state legislatures have absolute power to draw congressional maps, with no appeal to state courts? Or can state courts hear objections and step in when they find the maps are unconstitutional?
* The theory in question: The “independent state legislature” theory argues that state courts CANNOT weigh in on election logistics, including maps, passed by state legislatures. The theory could have given a political party in control of a legislature more power to draw partisan maps, potentially entrenching years’ or decades’ worth of advantage.
* What does the ruling mean? State legislatures will NOT be able to make an end-run around state courts with potentially gerrymandered maps.
* What does this mean politically? This is a win for some marginalized groups and potentially for Democrats who can continue to challenge maps in conservative-led states. (Though Democrats have lost gerrymandering cases in states they lead, like New York, more cases swing the other way.)
* A joint majority. Of the six justices who backed the ruling, three are Republican-nominated: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. And three were nominated by Democrats: Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor.

That might be plenty for you. It covers the gist of what happened. But if you want to dig deeper, we did too.

Here’s exactly what the majority found.
* The opinion, written by Roberts, is 25 pages long. (And that is with some very wide margins.) It is direct and firm. You can read it here ([link removed]) .
* Central to all of this is the “Elections Clause” ([link removed]) in the U.S. Constitution. It reads, “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 …"
* North Carolina Republicans argued that the clause means state courts cannot block any maps the legislature might construct, even if those courts found they violate the state constitution. Because the Constitution gives that power to the “Legislature” alone.
* But Roberts opened his opinion wielding a cornerstone of constitutional law, with this quote from 1803’s Marbury v. Madison: “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” In other words, courts interpret the law.
* Roberts then leads readers through a history lesson, referencing James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Papers and early cases in North Carolina itself. It’s a nice read.

The chief justice then drops a powerhouse, one-paragraph legal conclusion: “We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle (of courts’ ability to review the law). We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”

Simple. Done. “We hold that it does not.”

The court held that precedent after precedent, going back to the founding of the United States, makes it clear that courts have the power to interpret law. It rejected the new and — to some — novel theory about state legislative near-omnipotence in election law.

What about the dissenters?
* There were three: Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas.
* In his dissent ([link removed]) , Thomas argued that the stakes in the North Carolina case are essentially decided, that the map in question is cemented and therefore the Supreme Court has no role in the case. “This is a straightforward case of mootness,” he wrote. (Roberts disputed this notion in his opinion, writing the maps are still very much in play.)
* Thomas warned that this could return the court to more difficult decisions like 2000’s Bush v. Gore, upon which the outcome of the presidential election rested. This case also involved questions around state court review. Through its latest ruling in North Carolina, “The majority opens a new field for Bush-style controversies over state election law — and a far more uncertain one,” Thomas wrote.

More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: The short- and long-term consequences ([link removed]) of the Wagner uprising.
* One Big Question: What’s next for Putin’s regime ([link removed]) after the Wagner revolt in Russia?
* A Closer Look: Inside the African American studies class praised by some and fiercely opposed by others ([link removed]) .
* Perspectives: A conversation with D’Arcy Drollinger, who’s serving her first year as San Francisco’s official drag laureate ([link removed]) .

HOW REPUBLICAN VOTERS VIEW 2024 GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
By Laura Santhanam, @LauraSanthanam ([link removed])
Health Reporter & Coordinating Producer for Polling

As summer campaign season heats up, about six out of 10 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say it’s more important to have a presidential nominee who stands on conservative principles ([link removed]) than one who has the best chance of defeating incumbent President Joe Biden, according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll.

Among the same group of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 76 percent had a favorable impression of former President Donald Trump, whom Biden defeated in the 2020 election.
[link removed]
Image by Jenna Cohen/PBS NewsHour
When asked about nine GOP presidential hopefuls, two-thirds of these voters said they had a favorable impression of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, considered to be Trump’s strongest rival, and half said the same about Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. No other candidates crossed the 50 percent favorability threshold. Half of the respondents said they had an unfavorable view of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — the highest of the candidates in this poll.

Candidates still have a chance to make a powerful impression in the months before the first primary contest, though this poll suggests some have further to go than others. The first GOP primary debate will take place Aug. 23 in Milwaukee.

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Cybele Mayes-Osterman, @CybeleMO ([link removed])
Associate Editorial Producer

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., threatened to move forward with impeachment proceedings ([link removed]) against Attorney General Merrick Garland after the Department of Justice announced a plea deal with President Joe Biden’s son Hunter on tax charges.

According to a plea agreement ([link removed]) reached last week with the U.S. attorney for Delaware, Hunter Biden will plead guilty to two misdemeanor charges of failing to file taxes. It also sets up a probationary agreement over a felony charge of illegally possessing a firearm, which will allow him to avoid prosecution.

Late last week, Garland pushed back against claims, ([link removed]) raised by IRS whistleblowers, that the Justice Department interfered in the investigation.

Our question: Hunter Biden is far from the first child of a president to become embroiled in political scandals and legal charges. Which child of a former U.S. president was once sued for conflict of interest issues by federal regulators, effectively ending their hopes of a political career?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: Which vice president holds the record for most tie-breaking votes in U.S. Senate history? How many more does Harris need to pass him?

The answer: John C. Calhoun ([link removed]) has cast the most tie-breaking votes — 31 — during his tenure as vice president. As of last Tuesday, Kamala Harris was tied with John Adams for second-most tie-breaking votes at 29. But later in the week, she casted her 30th ([link removed]) , coming closer to tying Calhoun and maybe to breaking the Senate record.

Congratulations to our winners: Richard Livingston and Barry Weinstein!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS NewsHour's newsletters ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2023 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])