December 12, 2022
Courts and Redistricting
Timothy Birdnow
Despite the last few years and the Demo-left's usurpation of the Constitution and state constitutions, the courts may rule judges cannot interfere with elections.
https://spectator.org/why-moore-v-harper-terrifies-democrats/
The U.S. Supreme Court finally heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper last week. The case involves a mundane constitutional issue concerning the definition of "legislature” as used in the elections clause. Yet it has produced panic among Democrats and a torrent of portentous predictions about the death of democracy from various leftist law professors. In the Washington Post, for example, Harvard University’s Noah Feldman expressed alarm that the court took up the "insane” case at all.
Is Moore v. Harper really insane? Of course not. The case arose early this year when the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a redistricting map produced by the state Legislature, then replaced it with a redistricting scheme of its own. The North Carolina General Assembly petitioned SCOTUS for relief on the grounds that this action violated Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the petitioners are on solid legal ground, as constitutional lawyers David Rivkin Jr. and Andrew Grossman explain in the Wall Street Journal:
The Elections Clause directs "the legislature” to regulate congressional elections, which includes drawing district maps. State courts aren’t part of the legislative process, and thus the North Carolina Supreme Court was obligated to uphold the General Assembly’s map.… State courts have the power to interpret election regulations, but they can’t override the legislature’s handiwork unless it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or a statute enacted by Congress.
Few readers will find this argument frightening, yet human rights lawyer Steven Donziger insists in the Guardian that it is "terrifying.” To appreciate why this case is so scary to the Democrats and their lawyers, you have to consider the outsized role litigation plays in their approach to elections. Convincing state courts to change election laws — whether they involve district maps, statutory deadlines, or signature rules for mail-in ballots — is as important to Democratic strategy as are voter registration drives and turnout operations.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the North Carolina General Assembly, Democrats will be forced to obey election statutes as written by state legislatures. This would seriously limit their ability to litigate their way to victory in the 2024 presidential election. Biden’s 2020 Electoral College victory was only possible because controversial election attorney Marc Elias convinced dozens of state courts to exceed their jurisdictions and change election laws governing mail-in ballots. It will come as no surprise that Elias considers Moore v. Harperdangerous:
Despite the last few years and the Demo-left's usurpation of the Constitution and state constitutions, the courts may rule judges cannot interfere with elections.
https://spectator.org/why-moore-v-harper-terrifies-democrats/
The U.S. Supreme Court finally heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper last week. The case involves a mundane constitutional issue concerning the definition of "legislature” as used in the elections clause. Yet it has produced panic among Democrats and a torrent of portentous predictions about the death of democracy from various leftist law professors. In the Washington Post, for example, Harvard University’s Noah Feldman expressed alarm that the court took up the "insane” case at all.
Is Moore v. Harper really insane? Of course not. The case arose early this year when the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a redistricting map produced by the state Legislature, then replaced it with a redistricting scheme of its own. The North Carolina General Assembly petitioned SCOTUS for relief on the grounds that this action violated Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the petitioners are on solid legal ground, as constitutional lawyers David Rivkin Jr. and Andrew Grossman explain in the Wall Street Journal:
The Elections Clause directs "the legislature” to regulate congressional elections, which includes drawing district maps. State courts aren’t part of the legislative process, and thus the North Carolina Supreme Court was obligated to uphold the General Assembly’s map.… State courts have the power to interpret election regulations, but they can’t override the legislature’s handiwork unless it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or a statute enacted by Congress.
Few readers will find this argument frightening, yet human rights lawyer Steven Donziger insists in the Guardian that it is "terrifying.” To appreciate why this case is so scary to the Democrats and their lawyers, you have to consider the outsized role litigation plays in their approach to elections. Convincing state courts to change election laws — whether they involve district maps, statutory deadlines, or signature rules for mail-in ballots — is as important to Democratic strategy as are voter registration drives and turnout operations.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the North Carolina General Assembly, Democrats will be forced to obey election statutes as written by state legislatures. This would seriously limit their ability to litigate their way to victory in the 2024 presidential election. Biden’s 2020 Electoral College victory was only possible because controversial election attorney Marc Elias convinced dozens of state courts to exceed their jurisdictions and change election laws governing mail-in ballots. It will come as no surprise that Elias considers Moore v. Harperdangerous:
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:27 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Courts and redistricting, in my view, are both important to our democracy. Courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional or that violate the principles of our constitution. You should try this Cybersecurity Companies San Francisco to hire best companies. Redistricting is a process by which states and counties draw up district lines for their political subdivisions. This is an important job because it ensures that each political party gets a chance at winning elections.
Courts and redistricting, in my view, are both important to our democracy. Courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional or that violate the principles of our constitution. You should try this Cybersecurity Companies San Francisco to hire best companies. Redistricting is a process by which states and counties draw up district lines for their political subdivisions. This is an important job because it ensures that each political party gets a chance at winning elections.
Posted by: jasmin at December 13, 2022 05:08 AM (H9VYi)
2
Agreed Jasmin, and redistricting is granted entirely to state legislatures by the Constitution - the courts are not granted the power of judicial review. They have largely usurped that power in recent years.
The People didn't elect the judges - they elected the representatives charged with the task.
The People didn't elect the judges - they elected the representatives charged with the task.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at December 13, 2022 08:10 AM (2V6hH)
24kb generated in CPU 0.0161, elapsed 0.8317 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.8261 seconds, 174 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.8261 seconds, 174 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
