Supreme Court Powers: Changing Election Laws?

The US Supreme Court has affirmed the role of state courts in election cases, rejecting the independent state legislature theory, which contended that state legislatures are independent of state courts and other branches of state government when making rules for federal elections. This decision maintains the system of checks and balances, ensuring state legislatures cannot act independently while creating election laws. While federal courts can review state court rulings in extraordinary cases, state courts continue to play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with state constitutions. This dynamic between state and federal courts is complex and context-specific, with federal intervention limited to rare circumstances. The interplay between these courts has significant implications for voting rights and election laws, with state courts acting as a bulwark against legislative abuses and restrictive voting laws.

State court rulings in federal election cases

The US Supreme Court has affirmed the role of state courts in election cases. The Court rejected the "independent state legislature theory", which contended that state legislatures are independent of state courts and other branches of state government when making rules for federal elections. The Supreme Court affirmed that state courts serve as checks on state legislatures, ensuring that laws comply with state constitutions.

The Supreme Court also asserted its power to review state court rulings in extraordinary cases, but emphasised that federal courts can only do so when state courts exceed the ordinary bounds of judicial review. This was demonstrated in Moore v. Harper, where the Supreme Court surveyed over a hundred years of precedent to determine that the Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from state judicial review. This means that state courts can strike down state legislation pertaining to federal elections under their constitutions.

State court rulings have also impacted election laws and procedures, such as in the case of Libertarian Party of Mississippi v. Wetzel, where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots received after Election Day. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals prevented Illinois from counting ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day. These rulings have significant implications for election procedures and voting rights.

State constitutions and the law

State constitutions are the cornerstone of state law, outlining the rights and responsibilities of state governments and serving as a framework for legislation and judicial decisions. They are drafted by state legislatures or constitutional conventions and ratified by the state's citizens, reflecting the values and priorities of the state's populace.

State constitutions play a pivotal role in shaping election laws, delineating the procedures for holding elections, defining eligibility criteria for voters and candidates, and outlining the structure of electoral districts. They also empower state courts, including the state supreme court, to act as a check on the state legislature, ensuring that laws enacted are in harmony with the constitution.

The state supreme court, as the highest judicial authority within a state, holds the mandate to interpret the state constitution and adjudicate on disputes pertaining to election laws. This includes the authority to review and invalidate laws or legislative actions that contravene the state constitution. For instance, the Alaska Supreme Court struck down a state senate map due to partisan gerrymandering, which violated the state constitution.

However, the dynamic between state courts and legislatures is intricate. The "independent state legislature theory" contends that state legislatures should be unfettered by state courts and other branches of state government when crafting rules for federal elections. This theory, if upheld, would have had profound implications for voting rights and the equilibrium of power between state institutions. Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Moore v. Harper, rejected this theory, affirming the enduring role of state courts in curbing legislative overreach and safeguarding state constitutional rights in the context of elections.

While the U.S. Supreme Court's decision preserved the traditional system of checks and balances, it also acknowledged the authority of federal courts to review state court rulings in extraordinary circumstances. This federal review is limited to instances where state courts surpass the customary bounds of judicial review, underscoring the intricate interplay between state and federal judicial systems in safeguarding election integrity.

Voting rights and the law

Voting rights are a highly contested issue in the United States, with a history of state and federal courts battling over the laws and practices that govern elections. The US Supreme Court has affirmed the role of state courts in election cases, rejecting the notion that state legislatures are "independent" and free from the checks and balances of other state institutions. This ensures that state legislatures cannot abuse their power when regulating federal elections.

State courts have long served as a check on state legislatures, ensuring that the laws they pass are in line with state constitutions. This system of checks and balances was affirmed in the Moore v. Harper case, where the US Supreme Court rejected the "independent state legislature theory". The Court's decision maintained the status quo, preventing a potential upheaval of election laws and practices.

However, the Supreme Court also asserted its authority to review state court rulings in federal election cases, particularly in "extraordinary" or "extreme circumstances". This power is intended to be used sparingly, only when state courts exceed the "ordinary bounds of judicial review". The Court has not provided a clear standard for such reviews, but it emphasizes that federal court intervention will be limited to rare cases.

State courts have played a crucial role in protecting voting rights and democracy. For instance, the Alaska Supreme Court struck down a state senate map due to partisan gerrymandering, and Montana's Supreme Court invalidated three state laws that infringed on voters' constitutional rights. These actions demonstrate the importance of state courts in checking legislative overreach and protecting the rights of voters.

Voting rights continue to be a contentious issue, with cases like Louisiana v. Callais highlighting the potential conflict between providing fair representation to minority groups and adhering to the interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's decisions in these cases can have far-reaching implications for the country's elections and the power dynamics between courts and legislatures.

State legislative abuses

In Florida, a law was passed creating a partisan election police unit within the Florida Department of State tasked with investigating voting "irregularities". The unit's first act was to arrest 20 people with past felony convictions for alleged voter fraud. However, information suggests that these individuals believed they were eligible to vote and had received voter information cards from the state. The intent of these prosecutions, led by statewide prosecutors, appears to be to intimidate eligible voters. This is an example of state legislative abuse, as the legislature passed a law that was used to intimidate voters and discourage them from exercising their right to vote.

In Georgia, several laws were enacted in 2021 to restructure local boards of election, which led to the removal of Black election officials across the state. The new boards then took actions that negatively impacted Black voters, such as eliminating Sunday voting hours. This is an instance of state legislative abuse as the laws passed by the legislature resulted in the disenfranchisement of Black voters and reduced their voting rights.

In Texas, legislative changes to voting since 2020 have included Senate Bill 1, which makes it more difficult for voters to obtain assistance with mail ballots, imposes stricter voter ID requirements, increases barriers for voters with disabilities, reduces polling place availability, and limits early voting opportunities. The law also criminalizes election workers who encourage voters to request mail ballots or take any action that hinders poll watchers' observation. This law is an example of state legislative abuse as it creates additional obstacles for voters, particularly those with disabilities, and restricts their access to voting.

In Louisiana, the state's congressional map was challenged in court by Press Robinson and other Black voters, who argued that it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black voters. While the lower courts agreed and directed Louisiana to pass a remedial map, the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority indicated that the inclusion of majority-Black districts may make the map unconstitutional. This case illustrates an instance of state legislative abuse, as the state's original map was found to violate the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court's decision could further diminish the electoral power of Black voters in Louisiana.

Additionally, while not specific to a single state, it is worth noting that across the country, state legislatures have been active in changing election laws, particularly in swing states like Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and Texas. These changes can have a significant impact on voters' access to the ballot and may disproportionately affect certain groups. While not all legislative changes are abusive, it is essential to scrutinize and challenge those that restrict voting rights or disproportionately impact specific populations.

Election laws and partisan gerrymandering

State supreme courts play a critical role in election cases, acting as checks on state legislatures to ensure that the laws they pass are compliant with state constitutions. In the context of elections, state courts have the power to review and invalidate election laws that are deemed unconstitutional or in violation of federal law.

In recent years, there has been a growing concern over partisan gerrymandering, where voting district boundaries are manipulated to favour a particular political party. Gerrymandering can be achieved through two main techniques: "cracking" and "packing". Cracking involves splitting groups of voters with similar characteristics, such as party affiliation, across multiple districts, diluting their voting strength. On the other hand, packing involves cramming certain groups of voters into a small number of districts, ensuring their preferred candidates are elected in those districts while weakening their influence elsewhere.

State supreme courts have been active in addressing partisan gerrymandering allegations. For example, in Wisconsin, voters challenged the state house and senate maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The Wisconsin Supreme Court initially declined to take up the gerrymandering allegations but later struck down the legislative maps, ordering the creation of new maps that prioritised partisan fairness. Similarly, in Florida, voters challenged the state's congressional map as an illegal partisan gerrymander, arguing that it eliminated Democratic seats and diminished the electoral opportunities of Black voters in North Florida. The case is currently under review by the state supreme court.

While state supreme courts play a crucial role in addressing partisan gerrymandering, their decisions can be reviewed by federal courts in rare circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed its authority to review state court rulings in federal election cases, particularly when state courts are deemed to have overstepped the "ordinary bounds of judicial review". However, the Supreme Court has emphasised that federal courts should only intervene in extraordinary cases to maintain the traditional allocation of powers between courts and legislatures.

Frequently asked questions