Are the justices about to hear “most important case, since the founding, for our democracy”?

([link removed])

Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Moore v. Harper. Prominent conservative judge J. Michael Luttig, raising an alarm, calls it “the most important case

([link removed])

, since the founding, for American democracy.” Let’s hope not.

After all, the Supreme Court should rule — decisively and unanimously — that this fringe notion is not the law of the land, never has been, and never will be.

Regular readers know the story: the Court is being asked to rule that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive power over redistricting and election rules, with no checks and balances from state constitutions, state courts, governors, or voter-approved ballot measures.

Often, lawyers try to come up with scary hypotheticals to show the logic of an argument. Here, the facts of Moore v. Harper are scary enough. North Carolina is narrowly divided between the parties. Yet the legislature produced a gerrymandered congressional map with eleven Republican seats and just four Democratic ones. The state supreme court struck it down for violating the North Carolina constitution. The legislature now says that state courts and constitutions have no role in redistricting — state lawmakers can do whatever they want when it comes to federal elections.

It’s a breathtaking claim, and it’s made up. It’s not a “theory” — as NYU Law professor Melissa Murray puts it, it’s fan fiction. No state runs its affairs that way. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected it repeatedly. James Madison would flip his powdered wig.

The amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs against the legislature’s claim have been fairly overwhelming

([link removed])

The cofounder of the Federalist Society. George W. Bush’s lawyer in the Florida recount. Every single historian and scholar of note, led by Rosemarie Zagarri of George Mason and Jack Rakove of Stanford. Republican and Democratic politicians and election officials. All have weighed in.

The chief judges of all 50 state courts wrote with alarm that this claim would cut out their key role in protecting voting rights. It’s a core federalism argument.

This Court, of course, likes to say it is originalist. The provision now under debate — the Elections Clause — was put in the Constitution by Madison precisely because the Founders did not trust state legislatures, thinking they would be captured by “factions” and would gerrymander and engage in vote suppression. (They did not use those words.) Madison explained at the Constitutional Convention that “it was impossible to foresee all the abuses” legislators would try to enact. Indeed, those worries were among the main reasons the Founders convened in Philadelphia in the first place. They wouldn’t have adopted a clause giving state legislatures unfettered power over elections. They knew full well there were state constitutions — in fact, they were really proud of that fact. The history for the independent state legislature theory’s claim is so threadbare that advocates have resorted to citing phony historical documents

([link removed])

The justices also purport to be textualists. The Constitution says the “legislature” sets the “times, places, and manner” of federal elections but that “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter” those rules. Nobody would argue that the use of “Congress” means presidents can’t sign or veto election laws, or that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply, or that the Supreme Court can’t judge the constitutionality of a federal voting statute. Yet that’s literally what the theory’s supporters argue about the use of “legislature” in the first half of the sentence. If “Congress” were interpreted this way, then lawmakers could raise or cut taxes without worrying about presidents signing or vetoing. This is sophistry, and not very sophisticated sophistry at that.

What should we look for at tomorrow’s argument?

We might hear the North Carolina legislators’ lawyers scramble and backtrack. Surely there’s a middle path, a “lite” version of the theory. Actually, there isn’t.

They may claim there’s some difference between state constitutional rules that govern procedure and those that limit substance. In reality, there’s no difference, and assigning federal judges the job of sorting that out is a recipe for clogged and chaotic courts. It’s nutty to say that citizens of a state could adopt a provision requiring a secret ballot, say, but not “free and fair elections,” as so many constitutions do.

The nine justices should remember that their ruling will have concrete and possibly catastrophic consequences in the real world. The Brennan Center’s brief catalogs all the court rulings, constitutional provisions, and rules that would be struck down if the Court acts unwisely. It would be sheer chaos.

([link removed])

My colleagues Eliza Sweren-Becker and Ethan Herenstein explain here

([link removed])

the many logical flaws and incoherence of watered-down versions of the independent state legislature theory. But notice this about the proposals: every one of them takes important powers away from governors, judges, and the voters themselves and concentrates power in the hands of state legislatures.

The Supreme Court justices have a chance to speak clearly — when it comes to this kind of tendentious power grab, they should just say no.

John, we’re pushing democracy forward. Join us in our efforts to rebuild American democracy and advance policies to protect voting rights, ensure fair representation, and curb the role of big money in politics.



Your gift will be matched dollar for dollar to fuel our work.

([link removed])

DONATE

([link removed])

The Ongoing Threat to Democracy

Election deniers in Arizona’s Cochise County abused their local administrative roles to try to stop the certification of the 2022 midterm results. Fortunately, a court ordered the officials to certify, but it shouldn’t have gotten to that point. “Certification is a ministerial, nondiscretionary act, and it is never appropriate for officials to withhold that act as a form of protest,” Alice Clapman writes. “While these efforts appear unlikely to succeed this time, they show the need for vigilance going forward.” Read more

([link removed])

Tracking State Abortion Litigation After Dobbs

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, more than a dozen states have moved to enforce abortion bans and restrictions. In response, advocates have filed 34 lawsuits to protect reproductive rights under state law. A new tracker from the Brennan Center and the Center for Reproductive Rights compiles the pending and completed legal challenges to abortion bans in state courts. Read more

([link removed])

Defending Unenumerated Rights

Thirty-three state constitutions include a "baby variant" of the U.S. Constitution's Ninth Amendment to specify that a right can't be denied just because it isn't mentioned in the text. However, as the Center for Judicial Engagement’s Anthony Sanders notes, judges generally ignore these popular provisions and can fail to recognize unenumerated rights. “Just as federal judges have a duty to enforce the First Amendment, state judges must enforce Baby Ninths,” he writes. Read more

([link removed])

Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: Secret War: Unauthorized Combat and Legal Loopholes

([link removed])

Wednesday, January 18, 3–4 p.m. ET

Since 9/11, the United States has secretly engaged in armed conflict across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia for the sake of combating terrorism. Little-known laws have also enabled hostilities in the name of “security cooperation” — authorizing the Pentagon to create and use paramilitaries without notifying key decision-makers in Congress and permitting presidents to counter not just terrorist groups but also states, such as China, Iran, and Russia. Through these laws, a handful of government officials, working with minimal oversight and no notice to the public, could stumble the United States into a major conflict. Expert panelists will take on the question of how Congress should address this danger. RSVP today

([link removed])

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

([link removed])

News

Michael Li on New York’s newly drafted assembly redistricting map // WTEN

([link removed])

Sean Morales-Doyle on the growing racial turnout gap in Georgia // NEW YORK TIMES

([link removed])

Sean Morales-Doyle on the impact of Florida prosecuting people with past convictions for voting while ineligible // USA TODAY

([link removed])

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at

[email protected]







([link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

([link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])