The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed skeptical of making a broad ruling that would leave state legislatures virtually unchecked in making rules for congressional and presidential elections.
WASHINGTON —
Republicans from North Carolina who brought the case to the high court argue that a provision of the U.S. Constitution known as the elections clause gives state lawmakers virtually total control over the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections, including redistricting. That means cutting state courts out of the process, they say.
David Thompson, the lawyer representing the North Carolina Republicans, said overly partisan redistricting was a problem that the framers of the Constitution thought should be addressed in the political arena, not state or federal courthouses. “So you do accept the proposition that there is a role for this court in particular to assess … how that conflict is worked out in a particular case?” Roberts asked Prelogar.
North Carolina is among six states in recent years in which state courts have ruled that overly partisan redistricting for Congress violated their state constitutions. The others are Florida, Maryland, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas seemed mostly to favor North Carolina’s arguments Wednesday limiting state courts’ authority.
South Africa Latest News, South Africa Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Wednesday in ‘Most Important Case’ on DemocracyJoseph Morris, a law firm partner at Morris & De La Rosa, and Carolyn Shapiro, associate dean and professor of law at Illinois Tech Chicago-Kent College of Law join 'Chicago Tonight' to discuss the Supreme Court's new elections case.
Read more »
Jenna Ortega and Emma Myers Seemingly Ship Wednesday and Enid Dating in Netflix's 'Wednesday'I, too, ship 'Wenclair.'
Read more »
Supreme Court grapples with Christian business owner’s objection to Colorado’s pro-LGBTQ lawThe Supreme Court grappled Monday with balancing free speech against gay rights, hearing a case involving a Colorado website designer who says she shouldn’t be compelled to violate the tenets of her faith by creating products for same-sex marriages.
Read more »
U.S. Supreme Court leans toward web designer with anti-gay marriage stanceThe U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday appeared ready to rule that a Christian web designer has a right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages in a case the liberal justices said could empower certain businesses to discriminate based on constitutional free speech protections.
Read more »
After Alito's Hobby Lobby Leak, It's Official—The Supreme Court Has Been CompromisedIn 2014, Justice Samuel Alito allegedly leaked the impending decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby to anti-choice lobbyists weeks before the Court publicly issued it. This revelation suggests something more sinister: Some of the justices are acting in concert with conservative movement leaders, leaking opinions, signaling outcomes, and backchanneling. This is disturbing and devastating. The rule of law cannot survive if the judiciary ceases to be independent.
Read more »