Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Moore v. Harper, a landmark case out of North Carolina that gives the Court the opportunity to review the fringe independent state legislature (ISL) theory. Since the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures the authority over federal election laws, the ISL theory suggests that state courts cannot apply state constitutions when reviewing those laws. In the words of U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar during oral argument, it is an “atextual, ahistorical and destabilizing interpretation of the Elections Clause.”
Marc offers his analysis of the three-hour argument: “Trying to predict the outcome of a case based on the oral argument is always dangerous,” Marc writes. “Yet, there are several themes that seemed to emerge today.” Read the full analysis here — and what Marc thinks the eventual decision might look like. |
Want more details? Head over to our live page for a play-by-play of the argument, including quotes from all sides and justices, as well as all the background information on the case that you might need.
Moore v. Harper will have widespread and important consequences on the ability of state courts to curb partisan gerrymandering and create a cascade of effects on our elections. But, you can only fight for democracy if you know what’s happening — be on the lookout for more post-oral argument takeaways coming tomorrow.
|
