Science

Eric Holder

Washington — Former Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday that he is “extremely concerned” about the outcome of a case to be argued before the Supreme Court this week involving a legal doctrine that allows state legislatures to override federal election rules. Has full authority to determine without supervision. Courts.

“This is something that, if the Supreme Court goes through with it, will really dismantle our system of checks and balances,” Holder said in an interview with “Face the Nation.” And that’s why I’m extremely concerned. Am.” “It’s a marginal doctrine. It’s something that if the court does the right thing I think, you should have a nine to zero opinion by the court that rejects this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine that has been championed by conservative scholars.” Rejected, the practice has been rejected by Republican lawyers, by former Republican judges, and even by this convention of state supreme court justices. This is a very dangerous theory. It will endanger our system of checks and balances.

The judge will hear arguments on Wednesday in the court battle Brought to you by North Carolina Republicans, at the center of which is the “independent state legislature principle”. The principle included by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in his concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore and raised by former President Donald Trump and Republicans during the 2020 presidential election suggests that the Constitution gives state legislatures the sole authority to regulate federal elections in their states. Gives authority, without the oversight of state courts that enforce state constitutions.

Ahead of the oral arguments, voting rights experts are warning about the dire consequences of a ruling adopting this doctrine and the power it would give to state legislatures, especially in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.

Holder said, “Having taken the case, I expect the court to wade through this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine and get it off the books and out of our consideration.” “It is really – I cannot stress this enough – it is really a fringe theory that should result in a nine to zero rejection of the theory.”

The dispute before the Supreme Court stems from the redistricting process conducted by North Carolina’s GOP-controlled General Assembly following the 2020 census. The new congressional lines adopted by the state legislature gave Republicans an advantage for 10 of the state’s 14 House seats, but the state Supreme Court rejected the map, finding it an unconstitutional measure under the state constitution. There was a partisan gerrymander.

The General Assembly enacted new voting lines, which were again rejected by the North Carolina trial court. The court then approved a map drawn up by a group of special masters and assistants that gave Republicans six seats in favor of Democrats’ four for the 2022 election cycle, with the four remaining districts more competitive, an analysis of campaign legal said. According to the Centre.

North Carolina Republicans first asked the US Supreme Court to intervene in late February, filing an emergency request for the court to block the use of court-drawn maps for this year’s congressional elections. high Court request deniedHowever, three of the conservative justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – said the court should have reinstated the district lines created by the state legislature and, in an opinion penned by Alito, said the case was “extraordinarily important and presented is “a recurring question of constitutional law, namely, the extent of a state court’s authority to reject rules adopted by state legislatures for use in the conduct of federal elections.”

Republicans asked the Supreme Court in March to decide whether state courts had the authority to change rules governing the “time, place and manner” of congressional elections, which they argued violated the Constitution. Only the legislature of each state has the power under the election clause. ,

A decision is expected from the Supreme Court by the end of June.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button