This fall, the Supreme Court will hear a case out of North Carolina that invokes the so-called “independent state legislature theory” — a constitutional interpretation that is as dangerous as it is flat-out wrong. It purports to give state legislatures near absolute power over federal elections, enabling them to enact laws that make it harder to vote and easier to interfere with election processes and results. “The independent state legislature theory has no legal or historic validity — it is a fever dream of partisan activists who are desperate to find some pretext to empower certain state legislatures for their political advantage,” Eliza Sweren-Becker writes. “This perverse reading of the Constitution cannot be allowed to undermine American elections.” LA TIMES

The January 6 hearings have revealed how Donald Trump and his allies sought to exploit weaknesses in the Electoral Count Act to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. The law determines how the Electoral College selects the president and vice president, and there is bipartisan support for reform proposals that would address the law’s vulnerabilities. A new Brennan Center explainer details the Electoral Count Act’s provisions and shortfalls, how these were used to try to undermine the 2020 presidential election, and what Congress can do to avoid future sabotage attempts. Read more

Americans have long looked to the Constitution and the Supreme Court as the best means to safeguard their freedoms. However, the U.S. Constitution sets only a minimum for individual rights that states must protect, not a maximum. State courts can and often do interpret their state’s constitution to offer greater rights and protections than the federal constitution in areas ranging from abortion access to redistricting. “With the increasingly radicalized Supreme Court, it’s time for American society — and the U.S. legal system — to turn more attention back to state courts,” Alicia Bannon writes. POLITICO

Since New York’s century-old handgun licensing requirement was struck down by the Supreme Court last month, the state has taken a novel approach to firearm safety. Alongside implementing stricter training requirements for gun permits and other reforms, it has enacted a new law requiring gun owners to obtain express permission to carry their guns on private property. This includes homes, restaurants, offices, stores, and so on. New York’s response is an astute one. The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen may have significantly and dangerously expanded the Second Amendment, but property rights are recognized by the Constitution as well. “The vast majority of people are unaware that the current default permits people to carry guns onto their property without their say-so,” Eric Ruben writes. “The new legislation would flip this default setting, empowering New Yorkers to have more control over their own property.” NY DAILY NEWS

The Supreme Court’s ruling last week limiting the EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions in response to climate change is a radical departure from long-established understandings of the role of government. More broadly, the decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency curtails regulators’ ability to engage in evidence-based policymaking to serve the public. Lawmakers must now amend countless laws to expressly authorize agencies to make key decisions — a task that Congress lacks not just the will but also the in-house expertise to achieve. “To fully grapple with contemporary societal needs, Congress needs to increase not only its technical capacity but also its democratic responsiveness. And over the long term, Congress needs to take meaningful steps to fix our democracy,” Mekela Panditharatne and Martha Kinsella write. READ MORE

The 10th Amendment, which divides power between the federal government and the states, has been used in recent decades by Democrats and Republicans alike to challenge executive authority. For instance, federalism arguments have been cited to shield sanctuary cities that don’t want to enforce immigration law, but they have also been used to allow states to forgo federal background check requirements for prospective gun purchasers. In a wide-ranging discussion, Andrew Cohen and Columbia law professor Jessica Bulman-Pozen delve into the selective invocations of the 10th Amendment across the political spectrum, how this doctrine applies to states’ power over local governments, and what federalism cases to look out for in the future. READ MORE

• Tom Wolf on the consequences of adopting the independent state legislature theory // ABC NEWS
• Alicia Bannon on the need for public trust in courts // BOSTON GLOBE
• Michael Li on the threat of partisan gerrymandering // CNET
• Michael Waldman on the meaning of “All men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence // ASSOCIATED PRESS