If anyone with a good understanding, please read and explain it. I was under the assumption that these states violated other states voting process because the Governors bypassed the legislators. Doesn't this make out cases null?
"The Supreme Court, however, has provided a clear and unambiguous answer to this question, twice explaining that the term “Legislature” in the Elections Clause refers not just to a state's legislative body but more broadly to the entire lawmaking process of the state.
That a law was enacted by the people themselves, pursuant to state law, rather than by the state legislative body, is not enough to invalidate that action under the Elections Clause. The focus remains on the state's lawmaking process, whether the governor of the state participates in the making of state laws by exercising his veto power, or the people participate in the making of state laws through the state's referendum process."
"The opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist as a supplement to the majority decision, is rooted in the “plenary authority” of state legislatures to allocate Electoral College votes. Under Article II of the Constitution, state legislatures have total power to decide how their Electoral College votes should be awarded – they don’t even have to hold a presidential election if they don’t want to. Whatever their process, Rehnquist wrote, it should be respected; no court, state or federal, should disturb it. "
Governors are not part of the legislature, nor are secretaries of state nor are State Supreme Courts. They do not have lawmaking power.
I mean I have faith in them but if you just skim over all the past rulings, in that paper, it's kind of fucked up. Hence why I want more eyes to either clarify that im reading it wrong or bring awareness.
A judge IN PENNSYLVANIA, no less, ruled that Kelly's case (challenging constitutionality of changing election laws) was likely to succeed on its merits meaning she agreed in the strict interpretation of "legislature" meaning only the house and senate.
The state's supreme court promptly threw out the appeal because they "should've filed sooner"
"One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures. "
Governors do not have lawmaking power. State supreme courts do not have lawmaking power.
The opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist as a supplement to the majority decision, is rooted in the “plenary authority” of state legislatures to allocate Electoral College votes. Under Article II of the Constitution, state legislatures have total power to decide how their Electoral College votes should be awarded – they don’t even have to hold a presidential election if they don’t want to. Whatever their process, Rehnquist wrote, it should be respected; no court, state or federal, should disturb it.
Small, 15 page pdf. If it asks you to make an account, it's hosted here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hOVBJ1BuPLUzyvH1zwMB6DVEnwX5tXbu/view?usp=drivesdk
If anyone with a good understanding, please read and explain it. I was under the assumption that these states violated other states voting process because the Governors bypassed the legislators. Doesn't this make out cases null?
"The Supreme Court, however, has provided a clear and unambiguous answer to this question, twice explaining that the term “Legislature” in the Elections Clause refers not just to a state's legislative body but more broadly to the entire lawmaking process of the state.
That a law was enacted by the people themselves, pursuant to state law, rather than by the state legislative body, is not enough to invalidate that action under the Elections Clause. The focus remains on the state's lawmaking process, whether the governor of the state participates in the making of state laws by exercising his veto power, or the people participate in the making of state laws through the state's referendum process."
Bush v. Gore:
"The opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist as a supplement to the majority decision, is rooted in the “plenary authority” of state legislatures to allocate Electoral College votes. Under Article II of the Constitution, state legislatures have total power to decide how their Electoral College votes should be awarded – they don’t even have to hold a presidential election if they don’t want to. Whatever their process, Rehnquist wrote, it should be respected; no court, state or federal, should disturb it. "
Governors are not part of the legislature, nor are secretaries of state nor are State Supreme Courts. They do not have lawmaking power.
Exactly. Hence why I need more eyes on this asap
The dude in rh GA hearing that is a member of the 11th circuit and supreme court bar indicated it was just the house and senate.
Also the lawyer that joined Trump with the suit it an "amazing" constitutional lawyer according to Steve Bannon.
I would think they would know a path to victory.
I mean I have faith in them but if you just skim over all the past rulings, in that paper, it's kind of fucked up. Hence why I want more eyes to either clarify that im reading it wrong or bring awareness.
A judge IN PENNSYLVANIA, no less, ruled that Kelly's case (challenging constitutionality of changing election laws) was likely to succeed on its merits meaning she agreed in the strict interpretation of "legislature" meaning only the house and senate.
The state's supreme court promptly threw out the appeal because they "should've filed sooner"
Governors are considered Executives, not legislators...is one point.
Correct. But read the rulings from lower courts, state SC, and SCOTUS. cases going back years. This is what just confused me
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750#enforcing-the-elections-clause-by-preserving-the-role-of-legislatures-morle
Also read this very carefully, and remember that we have 3 originalist judges just nominated.
Thanks pede, reading now. So then wtf are the rulings in those cases about? It let the Governor veto the legislators changes
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750
"One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures. "
Governors do not have lawmaking power. State supreme courts do not have lawmaking power.
Bush v. Gore:
The opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist as a supplement to the majority decision, is rooted in the “plenary authority” of state legislatures to allocate Electoral College votes. Under Article II of the Constitution, state legislatures have total power to decide how their Electoral College votes should be awarded – they don’t even have to hold a presidential election if they don’t want to. Whatever their process, Rehnquist wrote, it should be respected; no court, state or federal, should disturb it.
stack overflow lol
Oh shit. Dont even need to have a pres election? Lol. Crazy.