311.最高法院正在审理一起将对 2024 年大选产生重大影...

Reader86

美国最高法院正在审理一起将对 2024 年大选产生重大影响的重大选举案件——无论其结果如何。

北卡罗来纳州案例的焦点围绕着一个被称为“独立州立法机关理论”的宪法概念。 支持者认为，州立法机关在各自州内的联邦选举管理中拥有相当大的权力，州法院甚至州长的监督有限。

高等法院目前正在审理 Moore v. Harper，专门针对该理论。 然而，有人担心法院可能无法在即将到来的 2024 年选举前及时就此事达成全面解决方案。

华盛顿考官报道：

摩尔诉 哈珀报道了一场关于北卡罗来纳州最高法院以过于党派为由驳回共和党支持的捐款计划的争论。

共和党人向高等法院提出挑战，但随后保守派设法重新控制了州最高法院。 现在 5-2 共和党多数法院随后选择重新审理重新划分案件。 法院在上月底取消了之前的裁决，该裁决是摩尔诉特朗普案的基础。 哈珀案在最高法院悬而未决。

NBC 新闻报道说：“独立州立法机关的论点取决于宪法中的语言，即选举规则‘应由各州的立法机关规定’。” “该理论的支持者从未得到最高法院的认可，他们表示，该语言支持这样一种观点，即在涉及联邦选举规则时，立法机关根据州法律拥有最终权力，可能与州宪法施加的潜在限制无关。 ”

最高法院的三位自由派法官——索尼娅·索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根和科坦吉·布朗·杰克逊——在口头辩论中似乎对该理论持怀疑态度。

卡根当时说：“这是一项摆脱国家重大政府决策方式的正常制衡的提议。”

NBC 在其报告中补充说：“独立国家立法机构理论得到了前总统唐纳德特朗普的支持者的支持，他们在 2020 年总统大选及其后的各种情况下都引用了它。 此案可能对一系列选举问题产生广泛影响，因其对 2024 年总统大选的潜在影响而受到密切关注。”

目前尚不确定最高法院最终是否会对独立国家立法理论的有效性作出最终判决。

早些时候，美国最高法院要求为 Moore v. 哈珀，专门确定它是否仍然对该案拥有管辖权。 该请求表明法官们正在考虑是继续对这个问题做出裁决还是驳回它。

在一份简短的命令中，法院要求有关各方提交“补充简报”，说明最高法院对该案的管辖权。

立法机关独立论的支持者说，它基于对宪法选举条款的严格解释：“举行参议员和众议员选举的时间、地点和方式，应由各州立法机关规定。”

大多数保守派专家和组织表示，在 2020 年大选之后，此案的结果至关重要，当时许多州法院和州长签署了因 COVID 大流行而改变投票程序的协议。

诚实选举项目的杰森·斯尼德此前曾告诉《审查员报》，驳回该理论的裁决可能“为左派的反民主运动敞开大门，这种运动已经使法庭充满了政治化的诉讼，并给我们的选举带来了混乱。”

但左翼法律专家根本不希望高等法院作出裁决。

“我公司今天在危险的独立州立法机关理论案（摩尔诉哈珀案）中提交的信件简短、贴切且 100% 正确。 “哈珀受访者认为，这里没有非轻率的管辖权基础，”马克·埃利亚斯 (Marc Elias) 发推文说，他曾代表民主党全国委员会工作，其名字与 2016 年克林顿竞选活动有关。

https://conservativebrief.com/he ... &utm_medium=DJD

Reader86

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a major election case that will have a major impact on the 2024 election — no matter how it is decided.

The focus of the North Carolina case revolves around a constitutional concept known as the “independent state legislature theory.” Backers argue that state legislatures possess considerable authority in the administration of federal elections within their respective states, with limited oversight from state courts or even governors.

he high court currently deliberating on the case of Moore v. Harper, which specifically addresses the theory. However, there are concerns that the court may not reach a comprehensive resolution on the matter in time for the upcoming 2024 elections.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Moore v. Harper features a dispute over North Carolina’s Supreme Court dismissing a GOP-backed apportionment plan for being too partisan.

Republicans filed a challenge to the high court, but then conservatives managed to regain control of the state Supreme Court. The now-5-2 Republican-majority court subsequently opted to rehear the redistricting case. The court scraped its prior ruling late last month, which was the underpinning of the Moore v. Harper case pending before the Supreme Court.

“The independent state legislature argument hinges on language in the Constitution that says election rules ‘shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof,'” NBC News reported. “Supporters of the theory, which has never been endorsed by the Supreme Court, say the language supports the notion that, when it comes to federal election rules, legislatures have ultimate power under state law, potentially irrespective of potential constraints imposed by state constitutions.”

The court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — appeared skeptical of the theory during oral arguments.

“This is a proposal that gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big government decisions are made in this country,” Kagan said at the time.

NBC added in its report: “The independent state legislature theory has been embraced by supporters of former President Donald Trump, who cited it in various cases during the 2020 presidential election and its aftermath. The case, which could have a broad impact on an array of election issues, is being closely watched for its potential impact on the 2024 presidential election.”

There are now uncertainties surrounding whether the Supreme Court will ultimately render a definitive judgment on the validity of the independent state legislature theory.

Earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court requested additional briefing materials for Moore v. Harper, specifically to determine if it still held jurisdiction over the case. The request gave indications that the justices were mulling whether to go ahead and rule on the issue or dismiss it.

In a brief order, the court called for the parties involved to file “supplemental letter briefs” addressing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the case.

Supporters of the independent legislature theory say that it’s based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution’s elections clause: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

Mostly conservative experts and organizations have said the outcome of the case is vitally important in the wake of the 2020 election when a number of state courts and governors signed off on changes to voting procedures due to the COVID pandemic.

Jason Snead of the Honest Elections Project previously told the Examiner that a ruling discounting the theory could “leave the door wide open to the Left’s anti-democracy campaign, which has saturated the courts with politicized lawsuits and introduced chaos to our elections.”

But leftist legal experts do not want the high court to rule at all.

“The letter my firm filed today in the dangerous Independent State Legislature theory case (Moore v. Harper) was short, sweet, and 100% correct. ‘The Harper Respondents believe there is no non-frivolous basis for jurisdiction here,'” tweeted Marc Elias, a prominent lawyer who has done work on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and whose name was linked to the 2016 Clinton campaign.