This argument rests on a blinkered reading of two clauses in the Constitution that assign to the legislature of each state the job of identifying the “Manner” of appointing presidential electors and the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections. Neither clause suggests that state legislatures can violate their own constitutions.Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist suggested this far-fetched theory in a concurrence in Bush v. Gore. But the theory failed to command a majority, and it was largely ignored for almost two decades.
But in the 2020 election litigation, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, in addition to Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, expressed sympathy for the theory.
Since 2020, a mountain of scholarship has emerged thoroughly debunking the ISLT. Its historical bases are nonexistent. The Founders understood well that states could choose to have constitutions that constrain state legislatures, and that view has held sway in practice and law ever since. And state executive officials have also enjoyed considerable discretion to operate federal elections since the founding.
No comments:
Post a Comment