• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the SCOTUS allow state legislators to decide election winners?

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
11,738
Reaction score
6,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
16,773
Reaction score
15,840
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections.

And here I was told that overturning Roe was a sign of the court’s commitment to democracy. Maybe their only commitment is to delivering results the GOP wants?🤔
 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,492
Reaction score
10,440
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?
All else being equal, an elected state legislature has more democratic legitimacy to decide something than does a committee of nine appointed government officials with lifetime tenure.

That said, unless a state’s constitution explicitly forbade its court system from ruling on that state’s election laws, I fail to see how a state court could avoid interpreting state law.
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
17,702
Reaction score
7,681
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?
Both sides have been abusive of the voting process. Neither is willing to follow the letter or the intent of the law. They get their hands on power and they want to make legal changes which aid their side in winning.
People need to understand the job of the SCOTUS. It's to properly interpret the law as written, not as you believe it's was meant to be but isn't so you rule on it to make it want you want. Both sides have different views on this and getting either to see the other side is really tough, often impossible. Old saying, "God gave you two ears and one mouth." Think about it!
 

HIP56948

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2018
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
5,104
Location
Sarasota, Florida and Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I could be in error, but seems to me these so-called "Militia Groups" might need to turn their thoughts on what really counts in this society,
instead of worrying about Gays and bathroom protocols.,
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
28,321
Reaction score
11,957
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It's interesting. 99% of the time, the radical right on the court is ruling corruptly, following a radical ideology designed to overturn the constitution for the benefit of plutocrats.

But on presidential elections, they might be on stronger ground. Here's what the constitution says:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

In such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. That means they can let citizens vote to decide. Or they can decide themselves. Or they can throw darts. In such manner as the Legislature may direct. And that language is the basis, I suspect, of the argument that the state constitutions and court have no say - it says right there, the LEGISLATURE may direct, so who can second guess them on state grounds?

We take things for granted, but that doesn't mean they're required. Before JFK, political parties picked nominees in 'smoke filled backrooms' and conventions. JFK saw that he'd lose that, and took advantage of rules allowing him to run in primaries across the country. In his private plane, he and Ted Sorensen flew to all 50 states before the primaries, and he won that way. Ever since, we take primary elections for granted.

There don't need to even be primary elections; that's a party choice. And the constitution says right there, while you get to vote on your state legislature, you don't get to vote on president unless that state legislature says you do. How many Americans know that? Republican lawyers sure do. And they have a plan.
 

Loulit01

Muse Wanted: Apply Naked
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Messages
5,617
Reaction score
5,952
Location
Chillin' on the grassy knoll waiting for JFK Jr.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's interesting. 99% of the time, the radical right on the court is ruling corruptly, following a radical ideology designed to overturn the constitution for the benefit of plutocrats.

But on presidential elections, they might be on stronger ground. Here's what the constitution says:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

In such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. That means they can let citizens vote to decide. Or they can decide themselves. Or they can throw darts. In such manner as the Legislature may direct. And that language is the basis, I suspect, of the argument that the state constitutions and court have no say - it says right there, the LEGISLATURE may direct, so who can second guess them on state grounds?

We take things for granted, but that doesn't mean they're required. Before JFK, political parties picked nominees in 'smoke filled backrooms' and conventions. JFK saw that he'd lose that, and took advantage of rules allowing him to run in primaries across the country. In his private plane, he and Ted Sorensen flew to all 50 states before the primaries, and he won that way. Ever since, we take primary elections for granted.

There don't need to even be primary elections; that's a party choice. And the constitution says right there, while you get to vote on your state legislature, you don't get to vote on president unless that state legislature says you do. How many Americans know that? Republican lawyers sure do. And they have a plan.
State constitutions may come into play here.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
28,321
Reaction score
11,957
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I could be in error, but seems to me these so-called "Militia Groups" might need to turn their thoughts on what really counts in this society,

Republican propaganda is designed to get them to vote on issues that Republicans win on, that's what the election is largely about, which issues they vote on. It's why the propaganda whips them into a frenzy on the 'right' issues. I'm tempted to repeat the anecdote about Reagan running for governor, which shows that.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
28,321
Reaction score
11,957
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
State constitutions may come into play here.
That's what's to be ruled on. The Federal Constitution overrules the State Constitution, and it says 'as the legislature may direct', so on what grounds can the state constitution overrule the federal constitution saying 'as the legislature may direct'.
 

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
9,420
Reaction score
9,092
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
All else being equal, an elected state legislature has more democratic legitimacy to decide something than does a committee of nine appointed government officials with lifetime tenure.

That said, unless a state’s constitution explicitly forbade its court system from ruling on that state’s election laws, I fail to see how a state court could avoid interpreting state law.
YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
16,773
Reaction score
15,840
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.

Nah, incumbent legislators are supposed to pick their voters and decide who the winners of elections are.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
28,321
Reaction score
11,957
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.
Except that's not what the constitution says is required, for the presidency.
 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,492
Reaction score
10,440
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.
And yet this court just handed the abortion issue and the scope of EPA authority back to the voting public and their legislators.

Your concern for the electorate sure is fickle.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,317
Reaction score
50,313
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?

Hmm… isn’t that the idea behind the NVPIC? That ‘deal’ assigns 100% of a state’s EC votes to the national popular vote winner regardless of how that state’s electorate voted.

 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
84,120
Reaction score
36,010
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?
Is there some case before the Supremes that I haven't heard of? One that concerns "Federal and state wide elections"? Maybe you can provide a link to the case?

Or, are you just making shit up?
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
29,773
Reaction score
27,274
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?

This has more or less already happened, several conservative leaning states have already passed some sort of legislation allowing state legislators to determine something is not to their liking and replace everything from precinct level controls up to them alone resolving disputes as they set fit.
 

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
9,420
Reaction score
9,092
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Except that's not what the constitution says is required, for the presidency.
1. it is, because the electors are chosen by the voters, not the legislators.

2. they are talking about far more than just the presidential election.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,317
Reaction score
50,313
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
1. it is, because the electors are chosen by the voters, not the legislators.

2. they are talking about far more than just the presidential election.

What other than the POTUS election, using the EC system, depends on “electors”?
 

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
20,492
Reaction score
10,440
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's interesting. 99% of the time, the radical right on the court is ruling corruptly, following a radical ideology designed to overturn the constitution for the benefit of plutocrats.
Ever notice how 99% of his posts lead with a straw-man?
 

NuffSaid

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
4,129
Reaction score
5,307
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.
Not anymore, its about a small handful of right wing democracy hating clowns that get to decide that Republicans will win 100% of the time. The people have lost their voice.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
28,321
Reaction score
11,957
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
1. it is, because the electors are chosen by the voters, not the legislators.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."
 

KingLeo

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
1,810
Reaction score
1,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If this happens then why even have elections?
If the peoples vote means nothing and state legislators decide elections then we really have descended into fascism and authoritarian rule.
 
Top Bottom