570:. In that case, the Court assessed the constitutionality of a Michigan law regulating the selection of presidential electors. In upholding the law, the Court quoted approvingly from an 1874 Senate committee report containing language recognizing the absolute power of state legislatures to appoint presidential electors. The committee report went on to say that such power "cannot be taken from them or modified by their State constitutions." However, because the issue before the court in
1013:
Adoption of the ISL could create substantial confusion about the validity of a number of state election laws and regulations and even be destabilizing. Experts said it could allow legislatures draw gerrymandered maps and even subvert the next presidential election. Some fear this theory would be a severe, potentially fatal blow to
American democracy. Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that it would ensure the country's slide into minority rule. In an amicus brief submitted for
35:
771:, which amended the Constitution to require elections of U.S. Senators "by the people" of each state, replacing the former language granting such power to "the Legislature" of each state. In rejecting the majority's reasoning, the Chief Justice commented ironically on the amendment's ratification efforts: "What chumps! Didn't they realize that all they had to do was interpret the constitutional term 'the Legislature' to mean 'the people'?".
634:
970:, 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." The phrase, "the Legislature thereof" in both the Electors Clause and the Elections Clause is interpreted under ISL to refer specifically to a state's
767:. The Chief Justice argued that the text, structure, and history of the Constitution required reading the Elections Clause as assigning the duty of regulating federal elections within a state specifically upon that state's elected represented bodies. According to the Chief Justice, this interpretation is the only way to make structural sense of the necessity of the
816:
state election code enacted by the legislature." In another opinion in the same case, Justice
Gorsuch (also joined by Justice Kavanaugh) argued that the Elections Clause "provides that state legislatures—not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials—bear primary responsibility for setting election rules."
590:
that an amendment to the Ohio
Constitution allowing the public to reverse the state legislature's laws was constitutional, even when reversing the legislature's adoption of new congressional districts. The Court did not invoke the Elections Clause or other ISL principles in its reasoning. In 1932 the
507:
cite
Pinckney's report to Adams – the so-called "Pinckney Plan" – as supporting their claims, but Pinckney himself was unsure whether he sent the correct draft to be archived in 1818, 32 years after the convention. James Madison as well as some modern historians dispute
796:
speculated that had ISL been law before the 2020 presidential election, Republican state legislatures in states where Biden got the most votes (e.g. Wisconsin, Georgia, and
Arizona) would have sent their own slate of electors and re-elected Donald Trump. The Independent State Legislature theory was
815:
voiced interest in adopting the doctrine. Specifically, Justice
Kavanaugh wrote in favor of ISL as derived from the Presidential Electors Clause, writing "The text of Article II means that the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail and that a state court may not depart from the
1012:
Practically, ISL would mean that the general public (through ballot initiatives), governors (elected statewide and so not affected by district borders) and state courts would have no role in altering election laws or federal congressional boundaries, even if they violate the state constitution.
1019:, a bipartisan group of former public officials and federal judges warned that "a broad view of the so-called independent state legislature theory ... would essentially hand the future of democratic representation in the states to those motivated to entrench political power in a single party."
839:. The dissent maintained that the North Carolina judiciary's actions were worthy of review by the Court, arguing that " language specifies a particular organ of a state government , and we must take that language seriously." The Court agreed to review the case during the 2022–2023 term as
544:
proposed including a provision in the
Massachusetts Constitution that would limit the power of the Massachusetts legislature to redraw new congressional districts every two years. This proposal was rejected by other convention delegates as in violation of the Elections Clause of the U.S.
402:
The primary argument made successfully against ISL is the danger of concentrating control of elections in one part of a state's government, which would be an undemocratic violation of centuries-old precedents of federalism, separation of powers, and constitutional democracy.
749:, the Court ruled that the Election's Clause language "the Legislature thereof" can refer either to the legislative authority of a state's representative body or a state citizenry's use of popular initiative (if consistent with the state's constitution).
1371:
953:
Michael Morley argues for ISL saying it would give flexibility for legislatures, that election administration should be entirely run by politicians, put more power in state legislatures, and more quickly resolve election disputes. He also cites
556:
ruled that a provision of the
Mississippi Constitution requiring all general elections to be held biannually did not limit Mississippi's legislature's discretion to set the timing of congressional elections under the Elections Clause.
618:, Rehnquist argued that the Court's holding was further supported by the fact that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling significantly departed from the statutory text of Florida's election code—a violation of the Elections Clause.
452:'s prohibition on partisan gerrymandering. The Court previously rejected ISL in 2015, though four Supreme Court justices later voiced interest in adopting some version of the doctrine. The Supreme Court held in a 6–3 decision in
394:
Where state legislatures enact laws that conflict with their state constitutions, including provisions added to those constitutions through ballot initiatives passed by a state's citizens, proponents of ISL argue that only the
497:"Each State shall prescribe the time & manner of holding Elections by the People for the house of Delegates & the House of Delegates shall be the judges of the Elections returns & Qualifications of their members."
744:
filed suit, arguing that reassigning the power to draw congressional maps away from an elected state legislature violated the
Elections Clause. The Court rejected this argument. In a majority opinion written by Justice
1438:
1000:
argues that the founders clearly understood state legislatures to be "created and constrained by its state constitution." Other legal scholars consider ISL to be "fatally inconsistent with basic precepts of both
1504:
736:. In that case, the Court considered the constitutionality of the authority granted to an independent commission to draw congressional districts for the state of Arizona. The commission was created by
1306:
1733:
1710:
1456:
1343:
732:
518:
955:
1858:
1541:
1372:"Concluding Thoughts on the Invocation of the Independent-State-Legislature (ISL) Theory in the North Carolina Emergency Relief Application at the Supreme Court: Part Six in a Series"
788:
1243:
586:
Throughout most of the 20th century, both state courts and the
Supreme Court of the United States largely ignored or rejected ISL. For example, in 1916, the Supreme Court ruled in
416:
1399:
1209:
1426:
54:
328:
549:
arguing that such an amendment would amount to the Convention "assuming a control over the Legislature which the constitution of the United States does not justify."
82:
537:
516:
No majority ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly relied on ISL to determine the outcome of a case, and the Court has expressly rejected the doctrine in
768:
216:
987:
1975:
870:
740:
in which the Arizona electorate voted to amend the state constitution to remove the power of congressional redistricting from the state legislature. The
399:, not state courts, can resolve conflicts between state laws and state constitutions with respect to administration of federal elections within a state.
1848:
2196:
1635:
1556:
655:
648:
1490:
1996:
1790:
1271:
2169:"Brief of Amici Curiae Bipartisan Group of Former Public Officials, Former Judges, and Election Experts From Pennsylvania in Support of Respondents"
1307:"The United States North Carolina Partisan Gerrymander Case and the Ahistorical "Independent State Legislature" (ISL) Theory: Part One in a Series"
698:
196:
670:
206:
1531:
321:
963:
677:
378:
2084:
1607:
1235:
614:. In agreeing with the majority's invalidation of the Florida Supreme Court's order of a statewide manual recount of ballots cast in the
456:
in June 2023 that the Elections Clause did not give state legislatures unchecked authority over federal elections, repudiating the ISL.
2050:
684:
2191:
819:
In 2022, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented in a denial of an application for a stay of a ruling by the
314:
176:
61:
1091:
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. 787, 826, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2678, 192 L. Ed. 2d 704 (2015)
801:
615:
166:
1772:
890:
666:
444:'s determination that congressional districts North Carolina lawmakers had drawn to favor Republican candidates in races for the
24:
2024:
1166:
Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Wisconsin State Legislature, 141 S. Ct. 28, 34, 208 L. Ed. 2d 247 (2020) (internal quotations omitted)
2168:
396:
358:
186:
171:
145:
962:; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." and
2151:
1590:
597:
that the U.S. Constitution does not forbid a governor from vetoing a redistricting proposal passed by the state legislature.
150:
1947:
1820:
66:
191:
2201:
1763:
1485:
914:
878:
437:
424:
236:
140:
102:
1434:
1009:" as well as "an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and potentially chaos-inducing intrusion into state election law."
971:
882:
717:
362:
354:
211:
49:
1661:
930:
836:
487:
691:
1002:
824:
420:
97:
427:, the process whereby each state adopts new congressional districts every ten years using updated census data.
1786:
939:
does not give state legislatures sole power over elections, rejecting the independent state legislature theory.
449:
277:
133:
958:(The Elections Clause): "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,
302:
231:
2110:
1798:
1480:
1210:"How ISL Theory Has Already (and Recently) Been Repudiated by the U.S. Supreme Court: Part Two in a Series"
992:
ISL has come under criticism on originalist and other grounds. Conservative former federal appellate judge
820:
553:
441:
831:
and ordered the implementation of a judicially created map, on the grounds that it was an extreme case of
391:
of the U.S. Constitution does not give state legislatures sole power over elections and rejected the ISL.
1427:"As Moore v. Harper Takes Shape, a Broad Coalition Takes Aim at the Independent State Legislature Theory"
902:
828:
479:
370:
201:
87:
1684:
1980:
1612:
1073:
State of Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565, 570, 36 S. Ct. 708, 710, 60 L. Ed. 1172 (1916)
797:
used to try and overturn the 2020 US presidential election results in Pennsylvania among other states.
459:
As a matter of constitutional interpretation, ISL had been fiercely contested. While often defended on
922:
741:
910:
411:
The doctrine first appeared in legal arguments raised by attorneys for then-presidential candidate
374:
1175:
Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Wisconsin State Legislature, 141 S. Ct. 28, 29, 208 L. Ed. 2d 247 (2020)
644:
272:
226:
1505:"A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875"
1043:
793:
445:
297:
128:
1932:
1889:
874:
486:'s government; purportedly suggested the following clause in 1787, which was reported to the
621:
1006:
566:
366:
8:
983:
925:, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of
746:
262:
181:
1711:"The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions"
1344:"The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions"
1920:
1738:
1461:
737:
607:
287:
282:
246:
221:
112:
92:
482:, then a delegate of the Constitutional Convention, and otherwise an active member of
2147:
2058:
2025:"We Don't Talk About Leonard: The Man Behind the Right's Supreme Court Supermajority"
1928:
1924:
1885:
1586:
1557:"A controversial election theory at the Supreme Court is tied to a disputed document"
1400:"How the "independent state legislature" doctrine could transform American elections"
996:
argued that there is "absolutely nothing" to support the ISL. American legal scholar
993:
611:
490:
1976:"How the Radical "Independent State Legislature" Theory Could Disrupt Our Elections"
881:
that rejected the independent state legislature theory (ISL), a theory that asserts
1912:
1849:"There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the 'Independent State Legislature' Theory"
936:
804:, four conservative justices of the Supreme Court have indicated sympathy for ISL.
388:
2023:
Kroll, Andy; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Sweitzer, Nate (October 11, 2023).
2135:
2001:
1276:
1037:
1015:
898:
865:
857:
841:
808:
760:
541:
524:
503:
432:
383:
1997:"How The Supreme Court Could Turbocharge Gerrymandering — Just In Time for 2024"
1272:"How The Supreme Court Could Turbocharge Gerrymandering — Just In Time for 2024"
2139:
1948:"Could the US supreme court give state legislatures unchecked election powers?"
1821:"Could the US supreme court give state legislatures unchecked election powers?"
926:
918:
832:
756:
593:
483:
412:
1874:"Textualism, Judicial Supremacy, and the Independent State Legislature Theory"
2185:
2062:
1082:
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 114, 121 S. Ct. 525, 534, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2000)
780:
464:
241:
107:
1636:"'Moore v. Harper': A threat to US democracy or a meaningless exaggeration?"
1952:
1904:
1873:
1853:
1825:
1064:
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35, 13 S. Ct. 3, 10, 36 L. Ed. 869 (1892)
886:
812:
764:
752:
602:
546:
2144:
Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point
1758:
560:
The Supreme Court of the United States indicated some approval for ISL in
1916:
1905:"The Independent State Legislature Theory, Federal Courts, and State Law"
997:
906:
733:
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
730:
In 2015, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the ISL in a 5–4 ruling in
623:
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
519:
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
460:
267:
988:
Democratic backsliding in the United States § Twenty-first century
807:
In a federal case challenging Wisconsin's absentee voter laws, Justices
774:
894:
784:
292:
1532:"Fraudulent Document Cited in Supreme Court Bid to Torch Election Law"
600:
The modern revival of interest in ISL at the Supreme Court stems from
377:, ballot initiatives, or other bodies with legislative power (such as
34:
633:
1685:"When Democracy Was On The Ballot In 2022, Voters Usually Chose It"
1536:
1265:
1263:
1261:
1055:
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 13 S. Ct. 3, 36 L. Ed. 869 (1892)
1988:
1759:"History of the Article II Independent State Legislature Doctrine"
935:
In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the
789:
Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election
2085:"The Court Eviscerates the Independent State Legislature Theory"
1258:
578:
constitution, the court made no direct holding addressing ISL.
561:
2022:
436:, Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina had asked the
353:) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the
960:
shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof
1995:
Rakich, Nathaniel; Thomson-DeVeaux, Amelia (July 7, 2022).
1270:
Rakich, Nathaniel; Thomson-DeVeaux, Amelia (July 7, 2022).
1660:
Herenstein, Ethan; Sweren-Becker, Eliza (August 4, 2022).
2051:"How a Fringe Legal Theory Became a Threat to Democracy"
1791:"What is the "Independent State Legislature Doctrine"?"
1659:
1608:"The 'Independent State Legislature Theory,' Explained"
1530:
Herenstein, Ethan; Palmer, Brian (September 15, 2022).
1236:"The 'Independent State Legislature Theory,' Explained"
381:
or independent commissions). In June 2023, in the case
423:. The ISL theory has arisen in 2022 in the context of
1994:
1269:
775:
2020 presidential election and 2022 midterm elections
574:
was whether the Michigan law was consistent with the
508:
the version Pinckney chose as being the correct one.
387:, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the
538:
Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1820–1821
974:, and not any other parts of the state government.
823:. The state supreme court's ruling invalidated the
1583:Democracy awakening: notes on the state of America
1606:Herenstein, Ethan; Wolf, Thomas (June 27, 2023).
1234:Herenstein, Ethan; Wolf, Thomas (June 30, 2022).
2183:
1529:
2134:
1872:Litman, Leah; Shaw, Katherine (June 20, 2022).
511:
1605:
1233:
769:Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
1973:
1785:
1337:
1335:
1333:
1331:
1329:
1327:
1184:Moore v. Harper, 142 S. Ct. 1089, 1090 (2022)
463:grounds, numerous originalist scholars filed
322:
1734:"The Independent State Legislature Doctrine"
1702:
1481:"U.S. Supreme Court Docket: Moore v. Harper"
1457:"The Independent State Legislature Doctrine"
966:: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner
917:. The case arose from the redistricting of
827:'s adoption of a congressional map for the
474:
2111:"American Democracy Is Under Threat—Again"
1871:
1580:
1324:
948:
921:'s districts by its legislature after the
329:
315:
2197:Theories of constitutional interpretation
718:Learn how and when to remove this message
654:Please improve this subsection by adding
588:State of Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant
16:Judicially rejected American legal theory
802:2020 United States presidential election
2082:
2048:
1902:
1773:Florida State University College of Law
1633:
1554:
1544:from the original on December 11, 2022.
1493:from the original on December 16, 2022.
1441:from the original on November 17, 2022.
2184:
2166:
1974:Sweren-Becker, Eliza (July 28, 2022).
1945:
1903:Shapiro, Carolyn (February 28, 2022).
1847:Luttig, J. MIchael (October 3, 2022).
1846:
1818:
1731:
1708:
1682:
1454:
1341:
667:"Independent state legislature theory"
347:independent state legislature doctrine
1861:from the original on October 3, 2022.
1756:
1683:Rogers, Kaleigh (November 29, 2022).
1450:
1448:
1424:
1370:Amar, Vikram David (March 14, 2022).
1150:
1148:
1099:
1097:
968:as the Legislature thereof may direct
1634:Jiménez, Miguel (December 8, 2022).
1509:American Memory, Library of Congress
1394:
1392:
1369:
1365:
1363:
1361:
1305:Amar, Vikram David (March 1, 2022).
1304:
1300:
1298:
1296:
1294:
1208:Amar, Vikram David (March 2, 2022).
1207:
1203:
1201:
627:
606:, specifically from a three-Justice
545:Constitution, with delegate Justice
417:stop the recount of votes in Florida
343:independent state legislature theory
2108:
2016:
1812:
1764:Florida State University Law Review
1725:
1555:Lo Wang, Hansi (November 3, 2022).
877:1 (2023), is a decision of the
13:
1939:
1757:Smith, Hayward H. (January 2002).
1486:Supreme Court of the United States
1445:
1145:
1094:
1085:
879:Supreme Court of the United States
848:
14:
2213:
2167:McCord, Mary (October 26, 2022).
2083:Jurecic, Quinta (June 28, 2023).
1732:Morley, Michael (November 2021).
1721:: 40, 44, 45 – via Westlaw.
1455:Morley, Michael (November 2021).
1435:New York University School of Law
1425:White, Helen (October 28, 2022).
1389:
1358:
1354:: 40, 44, 45 – via Westlaw.
1291:
1246:from the original on June 6, 2022
1198:
885:have sole authority to establish
755:dissented in the case, joined by
355:Constitution of the United States
2192:United States constitutional law
2049:Marantz, Andrew (June 5, 2023).
1909:University of Chicago Law Review
1581:Richardson, Heather Cox (2023).
856:This section is an excerpt from
632:
488:United States Secretary of State
357:delegates authority to regulate
33:
2160:
2128:
2102:
2076:
2042:
1967:
1896:
1865:
1840:
1779:
1750:
1676:
1653:
1627:
1599:
1574:
1548:
1523:
1497:
1473:
1178:
1169:
1160:
1133:
1121:
1109:
1076:
1067:
1058:
1049:
964:Article II, Section 1, Clause 2
825:North Carolina General Assembly
581:
531:
493:in an 1818 draft of his notes.
421:2000 U.S. presidential election
2109:Huq, Aziz (December 8, 2022).
1418:
1227:
1029:
956:Article I, Section 4, Clause 1
1:
1709:Morley, Michael (Fall 2020).
1342:Morley, Michael (Fall 2020).
1191:
977:
656:secondary or tertiary sources
303:Common good constitutionalism
1946:Levine, Sam (July 7, 2022).
1819:Levine, Sam (July 7, 2022).
1799:National Constitution Center
1664:. Brennan Center for Justice
1662:"Moore v. Harper, Explained"
913:, and without constraint by
821:North Carolina Supreme Court
554:Supreme Court of Mississippi
512:Interpretation of the theory
442:North Carolina Supreme Court
7:
1771:(2). Tallahassee, Florida:
972:elected representative body
829:2022 U.S. midterm elections
450:North Carolina Constitution
425:congressional redistricting
197:Right to keep and bear arms
10:
2218:
2202:United States election law
1981:Brennan Center for Justice
1746:: 502 – via Westlaw.
1613:Brennan Center for Justice
1469:: 502 – via Westlaw.
981:
855:
778:
753:Chief Justice John Roberts
616:2000 presidential election
467:with the Supreme Court in
406:
379:constitutional conventions
369:from state constitutions,
207:Criminal procedural rights
1155:Arizona State Legislature
1140:Arizona State Legislature
1128:Arizona State Legislature
1116:Arizona State Legislature
1104:Arizona State Legislature
943:
923:2020 United States census
742:Arizona State Legislature
363:state's elected lawmakers
1022:
893:within their respective
610:in that case written by
564:from its 1892 ruling in
475:Role of Charles Pinckney
278:Political process theory
1640:EL PAĂŤS English Edition
949:Arguments made in favor
757:Justices Antonin Scalia
612:Chief Justice Rehnquist
591:Supreme Court ruled in
361:within a state to that
273:Substantive due process
794:Heather Cox Richardson
643:relies excessively on
499:
471:rejecting the theory.
298:Strict constructionism
202:Right to trial by jury
192:Freedom of association
2142:(2023). "Chapter 6".
1795:We The People Podcast
1046: (June 27, 2023).
495:
1917:10.2139/ssrn.4047322
1878:Wisconsin Law Review
1585:. New York: Viking.
1044:600 U.S. ___
1007:separation of powers
567:McPherson v. Blacker
247:Comprehensible rules
217:Freedom from slavery
177:Freedom of the press
121:Government structure
83:Separation of powers
27:of the United States
2146:. New York: Crown.
984:Election subversion
915:state constitutions
747:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
367:checks and balances
263:Living Constitution
182:Freedom of assembly
167:Freedom of religion
1884:(5). Madison, WI.
1789:(March 17, 2022).
1739:Fordham Law Review
1715:Georgia Law Review
1511:. November 3, 2022
1489:. March 21, 2022.
1462:Fordham Law Review
1376:verdict.justia.com
1348:Georgia Law Review
1311:verdict.justia.com
1214:verdict.justia.com
1157:, 576 U.S. at 825.
1142:, 576 U.S. at 824.
1130:, 576 U.S. at 819.
1118:, 576 U.S. at 800.
1106:, 576 U.S. at 787.
883:state legislatures
608:concurring opinion
501:The appellants of
438:U.S. Supreme Court
283:Judicial restraint
242:Right to candidacy
129:Legislative branch
25:Constitutional law
2153:978-0-593-44307-1
1592:978-0-593-65296-1
1433:. New York City:
994:J. Michael Luttig
891:federal elections
728:
727:
720:
702:
491:John Quincy Adams
359:federal elections
339:
338:
187:Right to petition
172:Freedom of speech
159:Individual rights
113:Tiers of scrutiny
88:Individual rights
2209:
2176:
2175:
2173:
2164:
2158:
2157:
2136:Levitsky, Steven
2132:
2126:
2125:
2123:
2121:
2106:
2100:
2099:
2097:
2095:
2080:
2074:
2073:
2071:
2069:
2046:
2040:
2039:
2037:
2035:
2020:
2014:
2013:
2011:
2009:
1992:
1986:
1985:
1971:
1965:
1964:
1962:
1960:
1943:
1937:
1936:
1900:
1894:
1893:
1869:
1863:
1862:
1844:
1838:
1837:
1835:
1833:
1816:
1810:
1809:
1807:
1805:
1783:
1777:
1776:
1754:
1748:
1747:
1729:
1723:
1722:
1706:
1700:
1699:
1697:
1695:
1680:
1674:
1673:
1671:
1669:
1657:
1651:
1650:
1648:
1646:
1631:
1625:
1624:
1622:
1620:
1603:
1597:
1596:
1578:
1572:
1571:
1569:
1567:
1552:
1546:
1545:
1527:
1521:
1520:
1518:
1516:
1501:
1495:
1494:
1477:
1471:
1470:
1452:
1443:
1442:
1422:
1416:
1415:
1413:
1411:
1406:. March 23, 2022
1396:
1387:
1386:
1384:
1382:
1367:
1356:
1355:
1339:
1322:
1321:
1319:
1317:
1302:
1289:
1288:
1286:
1284:
1267:
1256:
1255:
1253:
1251:
1231:
1225:
1224:
1222:
1220:
1205:
1185:
1182:
1176:
1173:
1167:
1164:
1158:
1152:
1143:
1137:
1131:
1125:
1119:
1113:
1107:
1101:
1092:
1089:
1083:
1080:
1074:
1071:
1065:
1062:
1056:
1053:
1047:
1041:
1033:
937:Elections Clause
931:Republican Party
929:in favor of the
837:Republican Party
835:in favor of the
723:
716:
712:
709:
703:
701:
660:
641:This subsection
636:
628:
480:Charles Pinckney
440:to overrule the
389:Elections Clause
331:
324:
317:
227:Equal protection
212:Right to privacy
151:Local government
146:State government
134:Executive branch
37:
21:
20:
2217:
2216:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2171:
2165:
2161:
2154:
2140:Ziblatt, Daniel
2133:
2129:
2119:
2117:
2107:
2103:
2093:
2091:
2081:
2077:
2067:
2065:
2047:
2043:
2033:
2031:
2021:
2017:
2007:
2005:
2002:FiveThirtyEight
1993:
1989:
1972:
1968:
1958:
1956:
1944:
1940:
1911:. Chicago, IL.
1901:
1897:
1870:
1866:
1845:
1841:
1831:
1829:
1817:
1813:
1803:
1801:
1784:
1780:
1755:
1751:
1730:
1726:
1707:
1703:
1693:
1691:
1689:FiveThirtyEight
1681:
1677:
1667:
1665:
1658:
1654:
1644:
1642:
1632:
1628:
1618:
1616:
1604:
1600:
1593:
1579:
1575:
1565:
1563:
1553:
1549:
1528:
1524:
1514:
1512:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1453:
1446:
1423:
1419:
1409:
1407:
1398:
1397:
1390:
1380:
1378:
1368:
1359:
1340:
1325:
1315:
1313:
1303:
1292:
1282:
1280:
1277:FiveThirtyEight
1268:
1259:
1249:
1247:
1232:
1228:
1218:
1216:
1206:
1199:
1194:
1189:
1188:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1161:
1153:
1146:
1138:
1134:
1126:
1122:
1114:
1110:
1102:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1038:Moore v. Harper
1035:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1016:Moore v. Harper
990:
980:
951:
946:
941:
940:
911:state governors
899:judicial review
866:Moore v. Harper
861:
858:Moore v. Harper
853:
850:Moore v. Harper
842:Moore v. Harper
809:Brett Kavanaugh
791:
777:
761:Clarence Thomas
724:
713:
707:
704:
661:
659:
653:
649:primary sources
637:
626:
584:
542:James T. Austin
534:
525:Moore v. Harper
514:
504:Moore v. Harper
477:
433:Moore v. Harper
430:In the case of
409:
384:Moore v. Harper
335:
141:Judicial branch
67:Judicial review
26:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2215:
2205:
2204:
2199:
2194:
2178:
2177:
2159:
2152:
2127:
2101:
2075:
2055:The New Yorker
2041:
2015:
1987:
1966:
1938:
1895:
1864:
1839:
1811:
1778:
1749:
1724:
1701:
1675:
1652:
1626:
1598:
1591:
1573:
1547:
1522:
1496:
1472:
1444:
1417:
1388:
1357:
1323:
1290:
1257:
1240:Brennan Center
1226:
1196:
1195:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1186:
1177:
1168:
1159:
1144:
1132:
1120:
1108:
1093:
1084:
1075:
1066:
1057:
1048:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1021:
979:
976:
950:
947:
945:
942:
927:gerrymandering
919:North Carolina
862:
854:
852:
847:
833:gerrymandering
776:
773:
726:
725:
640:
638:
631:
625:
620:
594:Smiley v. Holm
583:
580:
533:
530:
513:
510:
484:South Carolina
476:
473:
413:George W. Bush
408:
405:
397:federal courts
337:
336:
334:
333:
326:
319:
311:
308:
307:
306:
305:
300:
295:
290:
285:
280:
275:
270:
265:
257:
256:
252:
251:
250:
249:
244:
239:
234:
229:
224:
219:
214:
209:
204:
199:
194:
189:
184:
179:
174:
169:
161:
160:
156:
155:
154:
153:
148:
143:
137:
136:
131:
123:
122:
118:
117:
116:
115:
110:
105:
100:
95:
90:
85:
77:
76:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
58:
57:
52:
44:
43:
39:
38:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2214:
2203:
2200:
2198:
2195:
2193:
2190:
2189:
2187:
2170:
2163:
2155:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2131:
2116:
2112:
2105:
2090:
2086:
2079:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2045:
2030:
2026:
2019:
2004:
2003:
1998:
1991:
1983:
1982:
1977:
1970:
1955:
1954:
1949:
1942:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1899:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1868:
1860:
1856:
1855:
1850:
1843:
1828:
1827:
1822:
1815:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1787:Jeffrey Rosen
1782:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1765:
1760:
1753:
1745:
1741:
1740:
1735:
1728:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1705:
1690:
1686:
1679:
1663:
1656:
1641:
1637:
1630:
1615:
1614:
1609:
1602:
1594:
1588:
1584:
1577:
1562:
1558:
1551:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1533:
1526:
1510:
1506:
1500:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1482:
1476:
1468:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1451:
1449:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1431:Just Security
1428:
1421:
1405:
1404:The Economist
1401:
1395:
1393:
1377:
1373:
1366:
1364:
1362:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1338:
1336:
1334:
1332:
1330:
1328:
1312:
1308:
1301:
1299:
1297:
1295:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1266:
1264:
1262:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1230:
1215:
1211:
1204:
1202:
1197:
1181:
1172:
1163:
1156:
1151:
1149:
1141:
1136:
1129:
1124:
1117:
1112:
1105:
1100:
1098:
1088:
1079:
1070:
1061:
1052:
1045:
1040:
1039:
1032:
1028:
1020:
1018:
1017:
1010:
1008:
1004:
999:
995:
989:
985:
975:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
938:
934:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:election laws
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:
859:
851:
846:
844:
843:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
817:
814:
810:
805:
803:
798:
795:
790:
786:
782:
781:Eastman memos
772:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
748:
743:
739:
735:
734:
722:
719:
711:
700:
697:
693:
690:
686:
683:
679:
676:
672:
669: –
668:
664:
663:Find sources:
657:
651:
650:
646:
639:
635:
630:
629:
624:
619:
617:
613:
609:
605:
604:
598:
596:
595:
589:
579:
577:
573:
569:
568:
563:
558:
555:
552:In 1873, the
550:
548:
543:
539:
529:
527:
526:
521:
520:
509:
506:
505:
498:
494:
492:
489:
485:
481:
472:
470:
466:
465:amicus briefs
462:
457:
455:
451:
448:violated the
447:
446:U.S. Congress
443:
439:
435:
434:
428:
426:
422:
418:
415:, seeking to
414:
404:
400:
398:
392:
390:
386:
385:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
332:
327:
325:
320:
318:
313:
312:
310:
309:
304:
301:
299:
296:
294:
291:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
276:
274:
271:
269:
266:
264:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
253:
248:
245:
243:
240:
238:
237:Voting rights
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
220:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
203:
200:
198:
195:
193:
190:
188:
185:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
158:
157:
152:
149:
147:
144:
142:
139:
138:
135:
132:
130:
127:
126:
125:
124:
120:
119:
114:
111:
109:
108:Equal footing
106:
104:
103:Republicanism
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
80:
79:
78:
74:
73:
68:
65:
63:
60:
59:
56:
53:
51:
48:
47:
46:
45:
41:
40:
36:
32:
31:
28:
23:
22:
19:
2162:
2143:
2130:
2118:. Retrieved
2114:
2104:
2092:. Retrieved
2089:The Atlantic
2088:
2078:
2066:. Retrieved
2054:
2044:
2032:. Retrieved
2028:
2018:
2006:. Retrieved
2000:
1990:
1979:
1969:
1957:. Retrieved
1953:The Guardian
1951:
1941:
1908:
1898:
1881:
1877:
1867:
1854:The Atlantic
1852:
1842:
1830:. Retrieved
1826:The Guardian
1824:
1814:
1802:. Retrieved
1794:
1781:
1768:
1762:
1752:
1743:
1737:
1727:
1718:
1714:
1704:
1692:. Retrieved
1688:
1678:
1666:. Retrieved
1655:
1645:December 10,
1643:. Retrieved
1639:
1629:
1617:. Retrieved
1611:
1601:
1582:
1576:
1564:. Retrieved
1560:
1550:
1535:
1525:
1513:. Retrieved
1508:
1499:
1484:
1475:
1466:
1460:
1430:
1420:
1408:. Retrieved
1403:
1379:. Retrieved
1375:
1351:
1347:
1314:. Retrieved
1310:
1281:. Retrieved
1275:
1250:November 20,
1248:. Retrieved
1239:
1229:
1217:. Retrieved
1213:
1180:
1171:
1162:
1154:
1139:
1135:
1127:
1123:
1115:
1111:
1103:
1087:
1078:
1069:
1060:
1051:
1036:
1031:
1014:
1011:
991:
967:
959:
952:
903:state courts
864:
863:
849:
840:
818:
813:Neil Gorsuch
806:
799:
792:
765:Samuel Alito
751:
731:
729:
714:
705:
695:
688:
681:
674:
662:
642:
622:
603:Bush v. Gore
601:
599:
592:
587:
585:
582:20th century
575:
571:
565:
559:
551:
547:Joseph Story
535:
532:19th century
523:
517:
515:
502:
500:
496:
478:
468:
458:
453:
431:
429:
410:
401:
393:
382:
371:state courts
365:without any
350:
346:
342:
340:
18:
2120:October 17,
2094:October 17,
2068:October 17,
2034:October 17,
1797:(Podcast).
1694:December 2,
1668:December 2,
1619:October 21,
1566:November 3,
1515:November 3,
998:Vikram Amar
907:presentment
536:During the
522:(2015) and
461:originalist
419:during the
288:Purposivism
268:Originalism
232:Citizenship
222:Due process
93:Rule of law
2186:Categories
2029:ProPublica
1192:References
1003:federalism
982:See also:
978:Criticisms
905:, without
800:Since the
785:Pence Card
779:See also:
738:initiative
708:April 2024
678:newspapers
645:references
293:Textualism
98:Federalism
75:Principles
55:Amendments
2063:0028-792X
1925:247272976
528:(2023).
375:governors
1959:July 10,
1859:Archived
1832:July 10,
1542:Archived
1537:Politico
1491:Archived
1439:Archived
1410:June 30,
1244:Archived
1005:and the
897:without
50:Articles
42:Overview
2008:July 9,
1933:4047322
1890:4141535
1804:July 7,
1381:May 23,
1316:May 21,
1283:July 9,
1219:May 21,
692:scholar
576:federal
572:Blacker
407:History
62:History
2150:
2061:
1931:
1923:
1888:
1589:
1042:,
944:Theory
895:states
787:, and
763:, and
694:
687:
680:
673:
665:
255:Theory
2172:(PDF)
1921:S2CID
1023:Notes
873:
699:JSTOR
685:books
562:dicta
469:Moore
454:Moore
2148:ISBN
2122:2023
2115:Time
2096:2023
2070:2023
2059:ISSN
2036:2023
2010:2022
1961:2022
1929:SSRN
1886:SSRN
1882:2022
1834:2022
1806:2022
1696:2022
1670:2022
1647:2022
1621:2023
1587:ISBN
1568:2022
1517:2022
1412:2022
1383:2022
1318:2022
1285:2022
1252:2022
1221:2022
986:and
889:for
875:U.S.
811:and
671:news
341:The
1913:doi
1561:NPR
909:to
901:by
871:600
647:to
351:ISL
345:or
2188::
2138:;
2113:.
2087:.
2057:.
2053:.
2027:.
1999:.
1978:.
1950:.
1927:.
1919:.
1907:.
1880:.
1876:.
1857:.
1851:.
1823:.
1793:.
1769:29
1767:.
1761:.
1744:90
1742:.
1736:.
1719:55
1717:.
1713:.
1687:.
1638:.
1610:.
1559:.
1540:.
1534:.
1507:.
1483:.
1467:90
1465:.
1459:.
1447:^
1437:.
1429:.
1402:.
1391:^
1374:.
1360:^
1352:55
1350:.
1346:.
1326:^
1309:.
1293:^
1274:.
1260:^
1242:.
1238:.
1212:.
1200:^
1147:^
1096:^
933:.
869:,
845:.
783:,
759:,
658:.
540:,
373:,
2174:.
2156:.
2124:.
2098:.
2072:.
2038:.
2012:.
1984:.
1963:.
1935:.
1915::
1892:.
1836:.
1808:.
1775:.
1698:.
1672:.
1649:.
1623:.
1595:.
1570:.
1519:.
1414:.
1385:.
1320:.
1287:.
1254:.
1223:.
860:.
721:)
715:(
710:)
706:(
696:·
689:·
682:·
675:·
652:.
349:(
330:e
323:t
316:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
