OMG, just listen to her. “Right-wing extremists!” She needs to remember who called the cessation of counting in the 2020 Presidential election? Not the conservatives – it was all in democrat controlled areas.
My message for @indivisibleteam, and everyone else:
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 25, 2022
We can’t save our democracy with action only on the big-time, big-name races.
We have to save democracy at the state level, too. Join us. https://t.co/3ohzw7jrRKpic.twitter.com/JJOmVAg2V7
Clinton appears worried about a SCOTUS decision in the case of Moore v. Harper, scheduled for release in the summer of 2023. (Actually, she refers to the court as right-wing, her favorite epithet for things she doesn’t like.) Moore v. Harper is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the independent state legislature theory (ISL), arising from the redistricting of North Carolina’s districts following the 2020 Census.
SL theorizes that state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts.
The questions presented: “Whether a State’s judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives . . . prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, and replace them with regulations of the state courts’ own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.”
State legislative leaders filed a petition on March 17 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. That paperwork arrived 10 days after the court had voted, 6-3, to reject an emergency petition. A successful emergency petition would have blocked the current court-ordered election map from being used for 2022 U.S. House contests.
On March 7, Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that he agreed with dissenting Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas that the court should address the issue of state courts’ role in addressing state legislatures’ decisions about redistricting.
It takes “yes” votes from four of the nine justices for the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear a case.
The case will pursue a legal theory called “independent state legislature doctrine,” which suggests that, under the Constitution’s election clause, “only the legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts.”
This argument is based on two clauses in the Constitution that assign to the legislature of each state the job of identifying the “Manner” of appointing presidential electors and the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections. More here at Carolina Journal.