the Supreme Court reaffirms the principles of electoral law

2023-06-28 05:53:50

“Democracy can breathe a sigh of relief”, congratulates himself Vanity Fair. The United States Supreme Court – with a conservative majority – dismissed the Republican congressmen of North Carolina, who were protesting against a decision by the Supreme Court of their state invalidating their new electoral map.

The Elders of North Carolina had ruled that the new constituency boundaries were unfair and grossly favored Republicans. The parliamentarians then turned to the Federal Supreme Court, arguing that the local courts had no say in the electoral laws passed by elected officials.

They relied on a legal theory inspired by a controversial reading of the Constitution, known as “independent state legislators”according to which the organization and regulation of federal elections would be the responsibility of parliamentarians, and no one else.

“Tote”

But the American Supreme Court did not follow them: the Constitution “does not protect local legislatures from ordinary judicial review by their state courts”states his judgment – ​​a very clear rejection of a “Trumpist theory, which put the future of democracy in the United States at stake”, estimated The country.

Adopted by six votes to three, this decision “is a welcome repudiation of an absurdly catch-all theory with no legal foundation”, judge New York Magazine. “Had the court sided with the North Carolina legislators, the implications could have been far-reaching – effectively giving state legislatures carte blanche to do as they please on redistricting and election laws”.

Pour Vanity Fairthe Elders of Washington have “defended the principle that states and constituents have the means, through their own courts, to ensure that their parliamentarians” don’t just do as they please – like “claiming that fraud tainted an election and nullifying the results without review by the courts”.

“Attempt to hijack the elections”

In unison with a large part of the Democrats, former President Barack Obama tweeted that he was pleased with the rejection of a “marginal theory”Who “threatened our democracy and the balance of power”. As for the magazine on the left Mother Joneshe savors the failure of the “Republican attempt to hijack the election”.

The website Vox however noted a detail “important” in the opinion written on behalf of the majority by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. “It includes a somewhat vague passage that concludes that federal courts can be implicated if a state Supreme Court ‘transgresses the ordinary bounds of judicial review’”.

The Sage is careful not to define these “ordinary limits”all interpretations are possible, observe the Wall Street Journal. The conservative economic daily judges as well as the decision of the Court “is not the searing victory that progressives claim” because she “will lead to more controversy over electoral laws”.