Common Dreams: Beware: The Supreme Court Is Laying Groundwork to Pre-Rig the 2024 Election

Bradley Mayer

Don't usually follow Thom Hartmann, but he's got a point in this article.  In fact, the determination of EC electors by popular vole is nothing but a state legislative convention and is not part of the 1787 Constitution, including Amendments.  It was a result of Sean Wilentz's "White Man democratic revolution" in the early 19th century that gave rise to the Jacksonian political system.  Now the way is clear to selectively reverse an almost 200 year tradition.  The gist:

"Which brings us to the Supreme Court's probable 2023 decision. As Robert Barnes wrote yesterday for The Washington Post:
""The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will consider what would be a radical change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority to set the rules for contests even if their actions violated state constitutions and resulted in extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional seats."
"While the main issue being debated in Moore v Harper, scheduled for a hearing this October, is a gerrymander that conflicts with North Carolina's constitution, the issue at the core of the debate is what's called the "Independent State Legislature Doctrine."
"It literally gives state legislatures the power to pre-rig or simply hand elections to the candidate of their choice.
"As NPR notes:
""The independent state legislature theory was first invoked by three conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices in the celebrated Bush v. Gore case that handed the 2000 election victory to George W. Bush. In that case, the three cited it to support the selection of a Republican slate of presidential electors."
"That doctrine—the basis of John Eastman and Donald Trump's effort to get states to submit multiple slates of electors—asserts that a plain reading of Article II and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution says that each state's legislature has final say in which candidate gets their states' Electoral College vote, governors and the will of the voters be damned.
"The Republicans point out that the Constitution says that it's up to the states—"in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"—to decide which presidential candidate gets their Electoral College votes.
"But the Electoral Count Act requires a governor's sign-off, and half those states have Democratic governors. Which has precedence, the Constitution or the Act?
"If the Supreme Court says it's the US Constitution rather than the Electoral Count Act, states' constitutions, state laws, or the votes of their citizens, the scenario outlined above becomes not just possible but very likely. Republicans play hardball and consistently push to the extremes regardless of pubic opinion."

The madness of knuckle-dragging troglodyte "originalism".

Join to automatically receive all group messages.