• Home
  • Blog
  DANGEROUS TIMES
  • Home
  • Blog

7/3/22

7/3/2022

5 Comments

 

YES, THE SUPREMES ARE BONKERS.
NEXT ACT: ENDING FAIR ELECTIONS

Picture
IT’S A HOLIDAY WEEKEND,  and you’re absolutely within your rights to take some well-deserved time off from thinking about  the Supreme Court as you try to recover from its just-concluded term of terror.

   How much can a citizen stand? There was  the medieval abortion decision reminding women who’s the boss of them and their bodies. The planet-frying decision hobbling efforts to reverse climate change. The drive-by shooting down of a gun control law. The absolution the court granted to the praying high school coach and his worshipful football team.

   But there’s something more dangerous on the court’s agenda for its new session that begins this fall, a case that could mean the end of fair and democratic elections.
  Sounds loony? I mean me. You're thinking that I’m sounding hysterical, over the edge, speaking in tongues, going, going and gone.

   But I swear, it’s not me, but the court  which has gone bonkers.  It’s decided to take up a North Carolina case that promotes an interpretation the Constitution that Trump fanatics tried to use, but failed, as they attempted to overturn the 2020 election.

   The issue is what's called the “independent state legislature theory,” a bizarre  reading of the Constitution that would give state legislatures control of all aspects of voting – including substituting their own gang of Electoral College members to chose the next president, replacing the real electors pledged to the candidate whom voters actually chose at the polls.

   But, you say, the courts wouldn’t allow that kind of chicanery.

   Sorry – and this is the worst part – this theory says the state courts would not be allowed to intervene.

   In other words, state legislatures would have what dictators and authoritarians have dreamed of forever: absolute power.

AS AN EXAMPLE of how this could work, let’s re-run the 2020 election, in which Joe Biden won the popular vote, as well as the Electoral College tally, which is why he is now president of the United States.

   A reminder: voters in a presidential election vote for Candidate A or Candidate B. But the people who technically elect the president are members of the Electoral College, who are called "electors."

   Each state is allocated as many electors as they have Senators and members House of Representatives.  So tiny Rhode Island gets four electors – one for each of its two members of the House, and two more for each of its two Senators. These electors are pledged to cast their Electoral College ballots to reflect how real voters cast their ballots. Rhode Islanders voted for Biden; its four electors did the same.

   But under the wacko “doctrine” that would give state legislatures exclusive control of elections, if the Rhode Island’s General Assembly didn’t like Biden’s victory, the legislators could appoint their own group of electors, who would then vote in the Electoral College for Trump. If other states did the same thing, then the worst president in history would still be making terrible history.

   Call it crazy. Call it absurd. Call it un-American. Just don’t call it impossible.

   With the  Supreme Court just agreeing to review  the North Carolina case, that means the court is seriously considering the independent state legislature doctrine. And we know after the court’s last batch of rulings that things could – actually, probably will – go very badly for the rest of us out here in normal, sane, common sense America.

Picture
 DO YOU WANT TO HEAR the details? No, of course you don’t.

   Me neither. I was catatonic the entire morning after after reading a tiny article that the New York Times practically hid at the bottom of Page One, stuck there perhaps by editors who didn’t want to spoil their readers’ July 4th holiday.  But lots of other news outlets, including the Washington Post, had similar accounts.

   The independent state legislature doctrine focuses on a couple of sections of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
   
   (I have no idea what “the Places of chusing Senators” means, and I invoke my First Amendment rights in chusing not to waste my time or yours to find out).

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

   There’s been lots of debate about these clauses, but bottom line, we’ve come to expect that electors will do what voters tell them to do, and that elections will be run fairly, and if they aren’t, the courts will sort things out.

   Nowhere in these sections, or in practice, does the Constitution prohibit state courts from intervening, as they normally do when legislatures go off the deep end.

   But we know how extremists are: they see “day” but they  read “night,” and in this case, they say that the Constitution says that legislatures can do as they please, because the sections use the word “legislatures,” but not the word “courts.”

   Absurd? Absolutely.

   Courts are always there to review whether the other branches of government, governors, presidents, legislatures are playing by the rules.  And our democracy depends on the checks and balances in which the three branches of government keep each other in line.

   The “executive branch,” the president, is a powerful figure, but not a king; and her actions can be limited by Congress and the courts.   The legislature – the House and the Senate—is subject to a president’s veto and what the courts have to say. The courts can be limited by Congress, the president and ultimately by amendments to the Constitution.

   It’s a foolproof system, except when fools are in charge, as they are in the right-wing, 6-to-3 majority of the Supreme Court and in more than half the country’s state legislatures, which are controlled by Trump-crazed Republicans.

Picture
 Now, the North Carolina case is about whether House voting districts were fairly drawn, but it’s the independent state legislature doctrine within the case that scares experts.  Here’s what some of them have to say.

   First, an article by Ethan Herenstein and Thomas Wolf, lawyers for the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of law:

   The nightmare scenario is that a legislature, displeased with how an election official on the ground has interpreted her state’s election laws, would invoke the theory as a pretext to refuse to certify the results of a presidential election and instead select its own slate of electors. Indeed, this isn’t far from the plan attempted by Trump allies following his loss in the 2020 election.

   And here’s what U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who also has been a U.S. attorney and a state attorney general, told the Washington Post:

   This phony ‘doctrine’ is an anti-democratic Republican power grab masquerading as legal theory. It was cooked up in a right-wing legal hothouse by political operatives looking to give state legislatures the power to overturn the will of American voters in future elections.

   Whitehouse went on to tell the Post that this was the same sort of scheme pushed by John Eastman, a Trump lawyer, as he and other Trumpsters tried to  overturn the last presidential election, and it could plant seeds of chaos in time for the next one. The fact that the Court is even considering a case involving such an extreme idea shows how beholden it is to the right-wing donors who got so many of the justices their jobs.

OVERRIDE THE WILL of the voters? Change the outcome of an election? Can’t happen here. Too outlandish. Too far out.  Even this Supreme Court would never condone such outrageous behavior.


   But we should ask people most affected by the Supreme Court’s recent rulings whether there’s a limit on the mischief the highest court can unleash.

   Ask a woman who’s been forced to give birth against her wishes because the Supreme Court took away women’s half-century right to abortion. Ask her whether the court has gone bonkers.

   Ask that woman’s kid what it’s like to be born on a planet that’s becoming uninhabitable, even as the Supreme Court decides that the nation’s environmental agency can’t control heat-rising gasses.

   Ask the same kid how safe she feels on New York City streets after the court shot down one of state’s gun control laws.

   Ask this kid if she thinks her chances of getting to play football will be improved if she joins the coach and the rest of the team in prayer, now that the Supreme Court has further blurred the lines between church and state.

   While were at it, maybe the rest of us should ask the coach, the football team, everyone on the sidelines and in the stands, if we can join them in praying that the Supreme Court will come to its senses.

   Please, please and please don’t let six black-robbed rogues go off the deep end, fall off the cliff, leap into the abyss and allow the end of fair and honest elections.

   Let’s all of us pray as hard as we can.
  
   And vote like crazy while we still can.

Picture
5 Comments
Neale Adams
7/4/2022 12:50:56 am

The problem is, what "we’ve come to expect" is not the Constitution. The Constitution is what is written in the document. It gives the State legislatures the power to decide how electoral college electors are chosen. George Washington was chosen by electors appointed by the State legislators in four of the ten states in 1789; the rest were chosen in states which had some kind of election. In 1828 John Quincy Adams, my (distant) ancestor, was chosen by electors chosen by legislators in Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, Vermont, and South Carolina. Actually, it took the Civil War to force South Carolina to hold elections for their electors.
So the Republican-controlled legislatures are enabled to choose electors any way they want--subject to their own laws and state constitutions. Don't blame the Supreme Court if it has to point this out in a ruling.

Reply
Brian C. Jones
7/4/2022 05:30:33 pm

The independent state legislature doctrine is not a noble crusade to honor the Constitution, but rather a mischief-making attempt to upend elections, subverting democracy.

One of the issues is whether legislatures have exclusive say over elections, taking state courts out of the equation. The danger is that partisan legislatures could reverse the outcomes they didn't like, and there would be no appeal to their arbitrary moves. Our system of government depends on the balancing effects off the three branches, and surely doesn't envision a circumstance of disallowing courts to settle disputes.

It has become law in all but two states to tie electors' votes to the popular vote tallies, and that's the glue which gives elections credibility.

The Constitution is an awkward document, and we've seen that it sometimes means more than its words and sometimes less. The "doctrine" gives the extremist majority of this court opportunity to do its hocus-pocus number on elections, just as it has in the abortion, guns, religion and other cases.

We're now seeing the many weaknesses in the Constitution and other system flaws that can give cover and be exploited by anti-democratic schemers.

As to your analysis of red-vs-blue state electoral numbers, in presidential elections, voters choose the presidents, and in those cases, including Bush and Trump, where they electoral college doesn't match the popular count, democracy suffers.There's no comfort in the red state, blue state match up, since voters in such a system would have no way to make big changes.

Bottom line, legislatures are supposed to establish fair voting systems, and not monkey with vote outcomes they don't like. after the fact, which is the danger here.

Reply
Jody M McPhillips
7/4/2022 09:05:28 am

Everybody take a deep breath. If the US is anything, it is a democracy. We have all grown up believing this, and to the majority, it is important. I agree this SCOTUS seems capable of anything. But once again, the Greeks nailed it: hubris leads to nemesis. They are rushing to shove all of this through because they know they represent a minority position, and a shrinking one at that. Most of TrumpWorld doesn't care about the details, they just want their nasty orange shitgibbon back. Even if SCOTUS takes this step next year, the blowback will be immense. It is still possible that the combination of SCOTUS overreach and the shocking revelations of the J6 hearings will lead to Democratic control of Congress. And if we get to 52 Dem senators, the SCOTUS reign of terror will come to an end. Optimistic? Yes, but not impossible. Our part is to find some way to contribute to enough Democratic victories to build a firewall and reverse this pending disaster.

Reply
Brian C Jones
7/4/2022 05:36:36 pm

Agree in principle. The danger is that we are at a tipping point, and if states take preemptive steps to allow the kind of post-election mischief the Republicans envision, it could be the thing, among many, that pushes us the wrong way. Getting voters, enough of them, to understand the urgency is the heavy lift in November.

Reply
Neale Adams
7/4/2022 03:38:59 pm

If, indeed, the State Legislatures chose the electors, it would not change a lot. That is, it would not result in a Republican lockdown of the Presidency. Even though the Republican in 2020 controlled 24 state governments (i.e., both Houses plus the Governor) compared to 16 controlled by Democrats, a lot of those Republican states are small in population and have relatively few electoral votes. By my analysis, assuming that in those 40 states the state legislatures chose the electors, and in the other 10 states plus DC the electoral vote was as in 2020, the Democrats (Biden) would have won the Presidency 275 to 263.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    BRIAN C. JONES
    Picture
      I'VE BEEN a reporter and writer for 58 years, long  enough to have  learned that journalists don't know very much, although I've met some smart ones. 
      Mainly, what reporters know comes from asking other people questions and fretting about the answers.
       This blog is a successor to one inspired by our dog, Phoebe, who was smart, sweet and the antithesis of Donald Trump. She died Feb. 3, and I don't see getting over that very soon.
       Occasionally, I may try to reach her via cell phone.


     

    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • Blog