U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Election Theory That Would Give States More Control Of Federal Elections

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an election law theory that would favor state leaders having more control over federal elections.

The Independent State Legislature Theory had previously been shot down three times by the court. According to the argument, state legislatures have the final say in elections. This includes everything from voting maps to laws. What’s troubling is under this theory, states would have the authority to throw out ballots they deem ineligible during presidential elections. These moves would have no oversight from the governors or courts. The Trump-backed thesis came about after he launched a campaign after President Biden‘s win. Several of the Supreme Court conservatives expressed some support for the theory, but ultimately, it was rejected yet again. The 6-3 decision was handed down with conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett also ruling against it.

“Our precedents have long rejected the view that legislative action under the Elections Clause is purely federal in character, governed only by restraints found in the Federal Constitution,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

North Carolina Republicans have pushed the court to co-sign the theory formally known as Independent State Legislature Theory. The idea attracted controversy due to the potentially devastating creation of unfair voting laws in states. This would have meant state lawmakers could write any new election regulations simply based on their beliefs. Critics have cautioned that accepting unrestricted state-level authority to enact federal election laws could pose a severe threat to democracy.