Luttig joins Common Cause in Moore v Harper S.C case: "Legally, it's the whole ballgame"

[butters]

Luttig told the New Yorker he sees Moore v. Harper as “without question the most significant case in the history of our nation for American democracy. Legally, it’s the whole ballgame.” This is the guy to whom Pence reached out, asking where he stood re trump's request to refuse to accept the EC votes from certain states, and this famous conservative legal scholar told him there was no constitutional, moral or legal justification that would permit that action. He was the guy who testified in the jan 6th hearing, where he spoke very slowly, weighing each word with great care, integrity, and moral fibre. He understood the historical importance of the day and his sombre manner maybe brought that home to more than a few.

Luttig joins Neal Katyal, known for his work as a S.C litigator in opposition to far-right groups, in what he considers the most significant case for American democracy. They are fighting (as Common Cause) the plan that will allow states to overturn the voters' choices in elections and, instead, award their state's EC vote to a candidate of their own choosing:

"Proponents of the far-right theory claim that state legislatures, which are among the country’s most disproportionately partisan bodies, have nearly unchecked power to gerrymander districts, and to choose their state’s electors in Presidential elections," Mayer explained. "Advocates of the theory argue that neither the state courts nor the state constitutions have the power to rein in the state legislatures.

If a state legislature deems a Presidential election flawed, they have the right to unilaterally overturn the popular vote in the state and award its Electoral College votes to the candidate of their choice. If the Supreme Court were to fully embrace the most radical form of the independent-state-legislature theory, it would shift nearly unchecked power over federal elections to partisan majorities in the state legislatures. Ultimately, only the Supreme Court would be in the position to judge whether such legislative power grabs were legal."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=5e58f09fd0764badccda5f8170160466

 

[ll74]

There should be a formula to distribute districts objectively and all states should use it. Until then, the people in power will always seek to make sure they stay in power.

 

[butters]

*There should be a formula to distribute districts objectively and all states should use it. **Until then, the people in power will always seek to make sure they stay in power.

*this seems fair. to achieve it, though?

i can't see (for example) a southern state 'doing what it's told' by a northern one, given differing climatological and social factors, nor a western state automatically agreeing that what works for an eastern state will work for them just fine. That's why there needs to be some overarching general standards, arrived at by sensible people from all states with the best interests of the USA as a whole and not a result of huge donations from special interest lobbyists. Can that ever happen?

**indeed: some because they desire the power for their own benefit, others because they sincerely believe their way is what's best for the USA (whether they're right or not).

 

[HarryHill]

Once again, this is why the popular vote should be used to elect a president.

 

[ll74]

*this seems fair. to achieve it, though?

i can't see (for example) a southern state 'doing what it's told' by a northern one, given differing climatological and social factors, nor a western state automatically agreeing that what works for an eastern state will work for them just fine. That's why there needs to be some overarching general standards, arrived at by sensible people from all states with the best interests of the USA as a whole and not a result of huge donations from special interest lobbyists. Can that ever happen?

**indeed: some because they desire the power for their own benefit, others because they sincerely believe their way is what's best for the USA (whether they're right or not).

*Not sure how it should work in practice, nor do I know if it's possible. You want to give everyone a voice, but you also want to represent the state as it is, not tipping minority or majority voices beyond what is represented in the state.

 

[jaF0]

Unfortunately, they may just be correct under Separation of Powers.

 

[icanhelp1]

Expanding powers to state courts, giving state courts mandamus power over the state legislative bodies could be construed as a violation of separation of powers. Easy remedy just follow the constitution. Both parties take advantage of gerrymandering. Courts already have to much power. IMHO

 

[ll74]

Expanding powers to state courts, giving state courts mandamus power over the state legislative bodies could be construed as a violation of separation of powers. Easy remedy just follow the constitution. Both parties take advantage of gerrymandering. Courts already have to much power. IMHO

Gerrymandering specifically makes it constrained to one party for each state with little to no chance of switching hands.

Courts have a role because of the Constitution not in spite of it