OT Moore vs Harper

https://www.yahoo.com/news/could-scotus-case-push-america-095209112.html

The Supreme Court has announced its intention to take up Moore v. Harper this fall, a case that critics claim is "perhaps the gravest threat to American democracy since the Jan. 6 attack." Here's everything you need to know:

What's at stake in 'Moore v. Harper'?
North Carolina House Speaker Timothy Moore (R) is suing a voter named Rebecca Harper as part of a dispute over a federal electoral map drawn by the state's Republican-controlled legislature. According to The Carolina Journal, the case will test a legal theory known as the "independent state legislature doctrine," which asserts that "only the state legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts."

Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that the "Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." Proponents of the "independent state legislature doctrine" argue that this clause gives state legislatures the power to draw congressional districts, set rules for federal elections, and appoint presidential electors, and that state courts have no power to interfere — even if the legislature blatantly violates the state constitution.

Which, in this case, it totally did. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in February that the proposed map, which would have guaranteed Republicans easy wins in 10 of the state's 14 districts, was "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the ... North Carolina Constitution."

Which, in this case, it totally did. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in February that the proposed map, which would have guaranteed Republicans easy wins in 10 of the state's 14 districts, was "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the ... North Carolina Constitution."

The situation in North Carolina is not so clear-cut, however. Robert Barnes noted in The Washington Post that the state's General Assembly passed a law two decades ago empowering state courts to review electoral maps and even create their own "interim districting plan." Moore's lawyers must therefore prove that the legislature violated the U.S. Constitution by abdicating its own authority over redistricting.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case in March but agreed on June 30 to hear it. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh have all signaled their openness to Moore's argument. The Washington Post's editorial board suggests that Chief Justice John Roberts — who three years ago left open the possibility that state courts could override partisan gerrymanders — is now "poised" to side with Moore as well. The board considers Justice Amy Coney Barrett "a possible swing vote." All three of the court's liberals are expected to reject the independent state legislature doctrine.

The case will be heard during the term beginning in October 2022, with a decision expected in the summer of 2023 — just in time to upend the 2024 elections.

What about the Electoral College?
In January, Ryan Cooper wrote for The Week that the state of Wisconsin "effectively exists under one-party rule." Democrats can still win statewide elections — say, for governor or U.S. Senate — but state legislative districts are hopelessly gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. If the Supreme Court sides with Moore, GOP-controlled legislatures in states like Wisconsin would have full authority to rig not only their own states' legislative elections, but elections to the U.S. House of Representatives as well.

And it might not stop there. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution empowers each state to "appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" equal to that state's number of senators and representatives. The clause doesn't say anything about the popular vote. This means, in theory, that state legislators can appoint whoever they want to the Electoral College. If SCOTUS side with Moore next summer on the question of federal redistricting, they're likely to apply the same reasoning to presidential elections. This interpretation was floated by conservative justices — including Thomas — during the Bush v. Gore (2000) case that handed George W. Bush the presidency.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 stipulates that each state's slate of electors must be certified by the governor of that state. In states like Wisconsin— which has a Democratic governor — this law could prevent the Republican-led legislature from handing the state's electoral votes to a losing Republican candidate.

But wait — if the independent state legislature doctrine is correct, then the governor has no right to usurp the legislature's constitutionally granted powers. That provision of the Electoral Count Act (ECA) would be struck down.

This idea "is quickly becoming dogma among Republican legal apparatchiks," Cooper wrote. Convincing Republican-controlled states won by President Biden to submit alternate slates of Republican electors was a key part of Trump lawyer John Eastman's strategy to overturn the 2020 presidential election. His plan also rested on the assumption that the ECA is "likely unconstitutional."

What's the worst-case scenario?
Zach Praiss of the nonprofit Accountable Tech and progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann have laid out similar nightmare scenarios that could arise if SCOTUS rules in Moore's favor.

Hartmann imagines a 2024 presidential contest between Biden and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in which Biden wins the popular vote in Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. The GOP-controlled legislatures of these six states then decide to disregard the will of the voters and award their 88 electoral votes to DeSantis, making him the winner and president-elect.

Republicans control both legislative houses in 29 states, plus the unicameral legislature of Nebraska, and they might soon gain the power to gerrymander themselves into a permanent majority. Those states control 306 electoral votes, more than enough to elect a president.

"It is difficult … to see the desire to put sole control of election rules in the hands of a partisan legislative body as anything more than a power grab," argued Christine Adams in The Washington Post. Laurence H. Tribe and Dennis Aftergut were even blunter in the Los Angeles Times: "Adopting the independent state legislature theory would amount to right-wing justices making up law to create an outcome of one-party rule."

 

So, basically when the Supreme Court stands with Moore, it will allow legislators in states like Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to ignore voters and put in place their own electors.

In affect the Republicans will have gerrymandered a permanent majority and take over the White House for good.

 

Yep

 

In a year the above will likely be a reality. 2024 will likely see a candidate become president who was not fairly elected by the people. And the people who are going to do it are the same people that have been crying out about stolen elections.

 

Nothing like a good ol' fashioned scare tactic.

I'm sorry, but this slippery-slope fearmongering is just a tad overboard. I can't imagine the level of protesting, rioting and total upheaval that would result if the GOP were to attempt a power seizure like that. And I'll guarantee you that there's a crap-ton of conservatives who wouldn't stand for something like that either.

Yes, there are plenty of Trumpublicans who are convinced that the election was stolen and consider Biden to be an illegitimate president. But I firmly believe they are actually outnumbered (though not outvoiced) by Republicans who value democracy over power. I'm certain that at least the vast majority of conservatives that I know (and I know quite a few) would be disgusted by something as described here.

 

I don't think it's cowardice; I think it's manipulation and propaganda. The conservative politicians tailor their messaging to the religious base, convincing them that they are on their side, that they're the only ones looking out for their interests at all, that they're the only ones who care about values and morality. The liberal politicians are generally openly contemptuous of the religious base. Given the choice between the two, which is going to gain their loyalty?

Honestly, if the Democrats actually courted the religious vote by speaking their language--"Much like Jesus, we stand for the poor and oppressed, the orphan and the widow, the lost cause and the outcast, loving your neighbor like you would love yourself, looking not only to your own interests but also to the interests of others, opposing greed and selfishness..."--I think they'd have a much better response amongst Christians. But I've never seen/heard any progressive politician attempt to reach out in that way.

 

It's not scare tactics. It's happening right in front of our faces with Republicans getting rid of black history in schools, removing LGBTQ rights, Roe V Wade being overturned, and all the other bullshit this past year. I don't see conservatives standing up, to say anything about it all.

Now, the SC will hear this case this fall to decide on Republican power ...I wonder which a way a far right majority supreme court is going to vote.

The Republicans have been gerrymandering for years taking over permanent power in several states such as Wisconsin...I haven't heard any conservatives standing up to say anything.

Am I believe when Republicans finally seize permanent power across this country when the SC gives them the thumbs up, that conservatives will suddenly speak up?

 

As much as I think gerrymandering is crappy, there's nothing inherently illegal about it. But states flagrantly disregarding the votes cast in a presidential election? Yeah, I think that'll get a slightly different reaction.

Maybe I'm just an optimist.