For lovers of democracy, the timing was sweet and propitious.
Sixteen months before the presidential election, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a ruling that protects voters against what could have been a scurrilous assault against the election process.
In a 6-3 vote June 27, the high court rejected the “independent state legislature” theory that would have given states almost unlimited power to establish federal election rules, while also allowing them to draw congressional maps with partisan gerrymandering.
The ruling was a huge victory for voting rights, enabling voters to retain the power the theory tries to take away.
“(The Constitution) does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion.
Propagated by Republican politicians, the independent state legislature theory is simple and dangerous — an attempt by the few to mute the voices of the many. It was birthed by “the Big Lie” that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election. The lies could have metastasized if the court had not intervened.
Proponents of the theory, using the Constitution as a smokescreen, focus on the elections clause, which states that the “times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” No other bodies or individuals can intrude into the authority of the state legislature, according to this warped theory. No court, no secretary of state, nobody.
Roberts rejected this notion, and the timing could not have been more favorable for our democracy. Legal experts agreed. The theory would have dismantled the guardrails that protect voters from politicians seeking to secure victories for their preferred candidates.
“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Roberts wrote.
Although the reaction may depend on your political affiliation, the ruling should be particularly heartening for Texas voters. The decision, legal experts say, should prevent other officials from pursuing the same misbegotten path as indicted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election results through legal, albeit bogus, means. Similar efforts may be history.
A Republican who has been suspended while under impeachment for allegations of bribery, Paxton challenged the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The argument was heavy on emotion, light on evidence. The high court, recognizing the absurdity, ruled that Texas “lacked standing.”
The latest case arose after a state court in North Carolina rejected gerrymandered congressional districts early last year. It was a short-lived triumph for lovers of democracy. The 2020 election gave the North Carolina Legislature a Republican majority, and the reconstituted state Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling.
“The questions presented in this area are complex and context specific,” Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. “We hold only that state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review.”
Most legal experts hailed the decision as a triumph.
“In its most extreme form, the independent state legislature theory could have weakened the foundation of our democracy, removing a crucial check on state legislatures and making it easier for rogue legislators to enact policies that suppress voters,” Abha Khanna, a lawyer representing the North Carolina plaintiffs, said in a statement.
The ruling, however, comes with a caveat. How do you determine when state legislatures have undermined voter rights? The decision is left up to the high court, and with old justices leaving and new justices arriving, a different court could arrive at a different determination.
Still, the decision represents a significant, if potentially short-lived, victory. Democracy has been saved. At least for now.
San Antonio Express-News
