Supreme Court Upholds Checks and Balances, Rejects Radical Election Theory

• The Supreme Court ruled that state legislatures do not have unchecked power over federal elections and are subject to oversight from state courts.
• The decision rejected the "independent state legislature theory," which argued state legislatures alone could regulate federal elections without review from governors, state courts or Congress.
• The ruling prevents state legislatures from unilaterally changing the rules around elections to favor one party and upheld the traditional system of checks and balances.
• The case arose from a dispute in North Carolina, where the state Supreme Court struck down a congressional map drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
• The decision provides more clarity for the 2024 election but leaves room for future litigation on state courts' role in regulating elections.

82 Articles

Washington Post Boston Globe Washington Post Santa Rosa Press Democrat The Atlantic The Hill The Hill Los Angeles Times Newsweek Times of Israel Boston Globe Boston Globe Washington Post Associated Press Forbes Santa Rosa Press Democrat Washington Post PBS NewsHour The Atlantic The Hill The Christian Science Monitor CNN The Daily Beast People Newsweek CNN Washington Post The Hill Washington Examiner Los Angeles Times Vanity Fair Esquire Boston Globe The Salt Lake Tribune POLITICO NBC News CNN Washington Post FiveThirtyEight The Hill Newsweek Salon The Hill Rolling Stone Vox Le Monde ABC News UPI Santa Rosa Press Democrat Washington Post The Kansas City Star Washington Examiner The Hill Semafor Quartz The Daily Beast ABC News Boston Globe New York Post Reuters Newsweek Vanity Fair The Daily Wire Time PBS NewsHour The Hill Los Angeles Times Washington Examiner CBS News Washington Post ABC News Forbes HuffPost Washington Post NBC News CNN Associated Press Fox News Mother Jones Business Insider Business Insider The Conversation