Page 1 of 1

Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:14 pm
by raison de arizona
Was surprised to find we weren't following this, perhaps I missed it? Anyway, to boil it down:
...the case will test a legal theory known as the "independent state legislature doctrine," which asserts that "only the state legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts."
Anyway, Eastman just filed. Check out his email addy:
Image
It's a movement. Still looking for a link to the whole filing.

More about the case...
Yahoo News (The Week): Could this SCOTUS case push America toward one-party rule?
Vox: A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6
The Carolina Journal: Moore v. Harper: fact, fiction,​ and predictions

Re: Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:20 pm
by raison de arizona
Still looking for the filing, but in the meantime, here is a nice thumbnail sketch:
Moore v. Harper, Explained
The debunked “independent state legislature theory” is on the Supreme Court’s docket, with potentially disastrous consequences.

What is Moore v. Harper about?
In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court will decide whether the North Caro­lina Supreme Court has the power to strike down the legis­lature’s illeg­ally gerry­mandered congres­sional map for viol­at­ing the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion. The legis­lat­ors have argued that a debunked inter­pret­a­tion of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion — known as the "inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory” — renders the state courts and state consti­tu­tion power­less in matters relat­ing to federal elec­tions.

Last year, North Caro­lin­a’s Repub­lican-domin­ated state legis­lature passed, on a party-line vote, an extreme partisan gerry­mander to lock in a super­ma­jor­ity of the state’s 14 congres­sional seats. The gerry­mander was so extreme that an evenly divided popu­lar vote would have awar­ded 10 of the 14 seats to the Repub­lic­ans and only four to the Demo­crats. The map was a radical stat­ist­ical outlier more favor­able to Repub­lic­ans than 99.9999% of all possible maps.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot hear partisan gerry­man­der­ing cases, voters contested the map in state court, contend­ing that the map viol­ated the state consti­tu­tion’s “free elec­tions clause,” among other provi­sions. In Febru­ary 2022, the North Caro­lina Supreme Court agreed with the voters and struck down the map, describ­ing it as an “egre­gious and inten­tional partisan gerry­mander . . . designed to enhance Repub­lican perform­ance, and thereby give a greater voice to those voters than to any others.”

The unre­pent­ant legis­lature proposed a second gerry­mandered map, prompt­ing a state court to order a special master to create a fair map for the 2022 congres­sional elec­tions. Unwill­ing to accept this outcome, two Repub­lican legis­lat­ors asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and rein­state their gerry­mandered map.
:snippity:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... -explained

Re: Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:23 pm
by pipistrelle
CCG is “Constitutional Counsel Group.” I doubt it’s related to the ragtag band of squatters.

Re: Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:25 pm
by raison de arizona
pipistrelle wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:23 pm CCG is “Constitutional Counsel Group.” I doubt it’s related to the ragtag band of squatters.
Yeah, it just amuses me that he has John Eastman has 1776 in the org name on his email. He's a character.

Re: Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:29 pm
by raison de arizona
Found it. It's a doozy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... %20CCJ.pdf
Screen Shot 2022-09-06 at 3.31.02 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-09-06 at 3.31.02 PM.png (44.59 KiB) Viewed 1062 times
i.e. the legislature can do whatever it wants without regard to law or constitution

Re: Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2022 7:14 pm
by bob
pipistrelle wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:23 pm CCG is “Constitutional Counsel Group.”
Unsurprisingly, its "office" is ... a UPS store.

Re: Moore v. Harper

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:31 pm
by raison de arizona
Extraordinary.
Will Doran @will_doran wrote: In a rare move, the group of all 50 states' Supreme Court chief justices wrote to SCOTUS, urging them to shoot down the argument NC Republican lawmakers are making--that there should be no checks and balances for election laws--in their "Independent State Legislature" case #ncpol

The brief is careful to say it doesn't support either party. But its first sentence (left photo) directly opposes the argument NC lawmakers made (right photo) about whether or not courts should be allowed to rule on redistricting maps, etc.

Link is here: https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2 ... _Filed.pdf

Re: Moore v. Harper

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:35 am
by Tiredretiredlawyer
Not ANOTHER case for the Supremes to use to COMPLETELY ignore precedent and make a ruling completely opposite of Dobbs. :crying:

Moore v. Harper

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2023 12:59 pm
by Luke
Here's hoping.
Marc E. Elias @marceelias2h

Opinions today in US v Texas give strong indication that Moore will be be correctly dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Hard to see the 8 justices who objected to standing/redressibility could not vote to DIG Moore.

Watch Monday am for orders. My bet 8-1 w/Alito in dissent.

Quote Tweet Democracy Docket @DemocracyDocket 2h

The U.S. Supreme Court did not release a decision in Moore v. Harper today.

The Court's next order day is Monday, June 26. The Court's next opinion is Tuesday, June 27. twitter.com/DemocracyDocke…




And a catch-up on this:

The Moore v. Harper case is an ongoing United States Supreme Court case related to independent state legislature theory (ISL), arising from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party. The case concerns the elections clause in Article I, section 4 of the Constitution and whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts.0 On November 8, 2022, the political composition of the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped to a Republican majority, and three months later, the court voted to re-hear Harper v. Hall, the case underlying Moore v. Harper, but nothing had changed in the case, only the court's composition.

Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2023 11:19 am
by New Turtle

Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2023 3:25 pm
by bob

Cf.:

Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2023 4:16 pm
by Luke
Leo should immediately move for reconsideration.

Was a bit concerned SCOTUS would punt and declare it moot but happily surprised.









Sanctioned Josh Barnett can't help himself from saying stupid things. Dude couldn't even win in the primary but it doesn't stop him from always being RIGHT in his own mind. Josh was the guy who encouraged the AZ Leg to just appoint GOP electors for 2024.



Moore v. Harper

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:32 pm
by roadscholar
Note to Leo: No part of a valid, coherent legal argument need resort to ALL CAPS. :fingerwag:

Moore v. Harper

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2023 1:34 am
by Luke
:boxing:


Marc E. Elias @marceelias 4h
With the major SCOTUS election cases decided, here are states to watch for potential new pro-democracy litigation.
⚖️Arizona
⚖️Michigan
⚖️Mississippi
⚖️Montana
⚖️Nevada
⚖️New Mexico
⚖️New York
⚖️North Carolina
⚖️Texas
⚖️Wisconsin

Marc E. Elias @marceelias 3h
Replying to @marceelias
Here are the 17 states where my team is already litigating pro-democracy cases in advance of 2024.
⚖️Alabama
⚖️Arizona
⚖️Arkansas
⚖️Florida
⚖️Georgia
⚖️Idaho
⚖️Iow
⚖️Kansas
⚖️Louisiana
⚖️Montana
⚖️New Hampshire
⚖️New York
⚖️North Carolina
⚖️Ohio
⚖️Pennsylvania
⚖️Texas
⚖️Wisconsin