And given the influences on the 2020 presidential race, and the still-concealed scheme by Joe Biden to have every federal agency and department work on the 2022 results, there’s a big concern among progressives and Democrats that they no longer would get their way in disputes.
So, according to the National Review, they’ve launched a disinformation campaign about the case.
The facts of the dispute are that state courts often overrule state legislatures on redistricting maps. But they often operate politically, when the judiciary is supposed to be impartial. It is in legislatures that politics play a role.
The case contends that North Carolina state courts improperly overruled a redistricting plan that lawmakers had approved, without reason, and based on the justices’ politics.
Explained National Review, “The Left is rallying opposition to the North Carolina challenge in federal court with a campaign of disinformation and hysteria. They have labeled the argument behind the challenge the ‘independent state legislature theory.’ They then put out the smear that, in the words of former Senator Doug Jones, its proponents want ‘the ability of state legislators to have absolute, total, unfettered control, unchecked control over elections’ so that, among other things: ‘They can suppress the right to vote. They can subvert elections with no ability to challenge that in the court system. That is frightening. That is scary.”
The analysis explained, “Hearing that is scary. It is also wrong. By the clear language of Article One, also set out in the petitioner’s brief, the Constitution provides ‘congressional review’ as a check against any potential abuse.’ As the brief acknowledges, the Constitution also limits both state legislatures and Congress. No map could engage in racial discrimination or breach any other federal laws, whether they stem from the U.S. Constitution or civil rights statutes. The ‘independent state legislature theory’ should more appropriately be called the ‘constitutional elections theory.’ The actual grievance of its critics is the failure to achieve legislative success on either the state or the federal level,” the analysis confirmed.
One of those echoing the fear of “extreme voter suppression,” the report said, was former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
He claimed a decision for the legislatures would “let Republican-controlled state legislatures overrule the will of the people and pick the next president of the United States without you.”
But National Review noted that conflates vote tabulation and certification, done by the executive branch, with the legislature’s role of making rules.
In the North Carolina situation lawmakers had drawn up the map, but the state Supreme Court dominated 4-3 by Democrats, voted 4-3 to reject it, even though the judges were unable to “identify a single true conflict between the map and the state’s election laws.”
The judges simply engaged in “unfettered policymaking,” it said.
“So what to do in the face of such an act of judicial fiat? The Elections Clause of the Constitution in Article 1, § 4, clearly provides that the ‘Times, Places and Manner of holding congressional elections shall ‘be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.’ In this case, the brief asserts, North Carolina’s congressional elections are now ‘not to be held in the ‘Manner’ ‘prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof,’ . . . but rather in the manner prescribed by the state’s judicial branch,” the analysis explained.
The National Review noted that former Attorney General Eric Holder, CNBC, MSNBC founder Tom Rogers and other leftists all have piled on the “false scenario.”
“Besides being reckless in their critiques, these activists are trying to stoke hysteria among all who would not give them their way: The theory they attack poses ‘an existential threat to our democracy’ (Holder); ‘the greatest threat to our democracy since the Civil War’ (Jones); and ‘a five-alarm fire for democracy’ (Millhiser). ‘Democracy, as we know it in the United States, would cease to exist’ (League of Women Voters). Former Democratic cabinet members like Reich and Holder give away their game by joining the career activists in calling for the Supreme Court to be packed with more seats,” it said.
It said, “The alarmism around Moore v. Harper comes from liberals who cherry-pick their grievances in states whose constituents favor Republicans and selectively use liberal activist state courts to give Democrats advantages they cannot get democratically. They are fine with partisan gerrymandering in states that favor Democrats. Their rhetoric about democracy is part of a con job, and the Left’s disinformation campaign serves as a subterfuge to distract their audiences from the reality that their true grievance is not on behalf of the people. It is that their strategy of jerry-rigging otherwise lost elections through renegade courts might soon come to an end.”
On PBS, Jason Snead, of the Honest Elections Project, said the case is “about one thing: rogue courts seizing the power to rewrite the laws of our democracy behind closed doors, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.”
WND reported just days ago when a coalition of judges told the high court they insisted on having their say in those redistricting procedures.
They told the Supreme Court they, state judges, should be the decision-makers.
Previously, the Supreme Court said in Rucho v. Common Cause, that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymandering claims. At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”