Eleanor Finch
Republicans are seeking to redefine a single word in the US Constitution, which would give state legislatures the power to override state constitutions and laws, and ignore state courts. This would allow them to draw congressional maps that favour their party, as seen in North Carolina, where a GOP-controlled legislature drew a map that was thrown out by the state Supreme Court. This new interpretation of the Constitution has been criticised as a threat to US democracy, with some arguing that it goes against the original intent of the Constitution and the idea that voters should be the ones calling the shots.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Control | Republicans control more than 60% of state legislatures |
| Power | The reinterpretation would give legislatures power over elections |
| Opposition | Republicans oppose the idea that voters should be calling the shots |
| Court decisions | Republicans want to ignore state court decisions and use GOP-friendly maps for elections |
| Originalism | Republicans view themselves as originalist interpreters of the Constitution |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Republicans want to redefine the word 'legislature'
- This would allow them to ignore state courts and use GOP-friendly maps for future elections
- The idea stems from a concurring opinion by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore decision
- It would give Republicans an advantage at the state level, where they control over 60% of state legislatures
- This new interpretation could unsettle US democracy
Republicans want to redefine the word 'legislature'
The state courts instead adopted a fairer map drawn by experts, which could result in Democrats gaining a seat in North Carolina. Republican lawmakers want the US Supreme Court to allow them to ignore the state court and use their own map for future elections. They argue that:
> "The Elections Clause does not give the state courts, or any other organ of state government, the power to second-guess the legislature's determinations."
This new interpretation of the Constitution would give legislatures unprecedented power over elections. Some have criticised this move, arguing that it is inconsistent with the practices of state legislatures and state constitutions in 1787, and flouts 100 years of clear precedent.
Despite Democrats holding slim majorities in the federal legislature, Republicans currently control over 60% of state legislatures. This new interpretation of the Constitution would give them even more power over elections.
Identity Disclosure: Is It an Invasion of Privacy?
You may want to see also
This would allow them to ignore state courts and use GOP-friendly maps for future elections
The move by Republicans to redefine a single word in the Constitution is part of a broader strategy to consolidate power and exert control over elections. This plan involves diminishing the power of state courts and utilizing favourably drawn maps to influence future electoral outcomes.
In North Carolina, a congressional map drawn by the GOP-controlled legislature was rejected by the state Supreme Court. This map was designed to favour Republicans and likely would have resulted in them gaining two additional congressional seats. However, the state courts opted for a fairer map drawn by experts, which could lead to Democrats gaining a seat. This episode highlights the tension between Republican-controlled state legislatures and the courts, with the former seeking to exert their power over elections without judicial oversight.
The Brennan Center for Justice, a liberal-leaning organisation, traces the origins of this idea to a concurring opinion by then-Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore decision, which settled the 2000 presidential election. Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are now appealing to the US Supreme Court, requesting to be allowed to override the state court's decision and use their GOP-friendly map for future elections.
By redefining the word "legislatures" in the Constitution, Republicans aim to empower state legislatures at the expense of state courts. They argue that the Elections Clause does not grant state courts or any other state entity the authority to question the legislature's decisions. This interpretation of the Constitution, however, has been criticised by legal scholars such as Vikram Amar and his brother Akhil Amar, who characterise the notion of independent state legislatures as "rubbish". They contend that the writers of the Constitution intended for the term "legislature" to be interpreted broadly, allowing courts to safeguard the voting rights of citizens in their states.
The Republican push to redefine a single word in the Constitution underscores their willingness to reshape the rules to their advantage. This strategy is not limited to elections, as evidenced by the US Supreme Court's recent decisions curtailing state gun regulations and overturning Roe v. Wade, which granted states the power to outlaw abortion. These actions reflect a broader effort by Republicans to remake the political landscape in their image, often at the expense of democratic norms and principles.
The US Constitution: Who Was the Author?
You may want to see also
The idea stems from a concurring opinion by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore decision
The idea that Republicans want to redefine a single word in the Constitution stems from a concurring opinion by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore decision. This decision settled the 2000 presidential election. In his opinion, Rehnquist argued that even if a state's constitution or laws give power to courts or a governor, legislatures should be able to ignore them. This theory, according to the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, laid the groundwork for the idea of independent state legislatures.
The Republican lawmakers' argument in this case is that "The Elections Clause does not give the state courts, or any other organ of state government, the power to second-guess the legislature's determinations." This interpretation of the Constitution would give legislatures unprecedented power over elections, which some critics argue would be extreme. Despite this, there is a growing opposition to the idea that voters should have the final say.
The Republican push for redefining the Constitution is also evident in their control of state legislatures. Republicans currently control more than 60% of state legislatures, despite Democrats holding slim majorities in the federal legislature. This advantage has been leveraged by Republicans, as seen in North Carolina, where the GOP-controlled legislature drew a congressional map to benefit themselves. This map was thrown out by the state Supreme Court, but Republicans want the US Supreme Court to allow them to use their map in future elections.
The Republican effort to redefine the Constitution has been criticised by legal scholars such as Vikram Amar and Akhil Amar, who argue that the original interpreters of the Constitution cannot legitimately impose this new doctrine, referred to as "ISL". They assert that the writers of the Constitution intended for the term "legislature" to be more expansive, allowing courts to protect the rights of voters in their states. Despite these criticisms, the US Supreme Court's recent decisions, such as reducing states' abilities to regulate gun carrying and allowing states to outlaw abortion, indicate a shift in how Americans live.
Understanding the Constitution's Preamble: Its Core Meaning
You may want to see also
Explore related products
It would give Republicans an advantage at the state level, where they control over 60% of state legislatures
Republicans control over 60% of state legislatures, and they want to redefine the US Constitution to give these legislatures more power over elections. This would allow them to override state constitutions or laws that give power to courts or governors. For example, in North Carolina, the GOP-controlled legislature drew a congressional map that was thrown out by the state Supreme Court as it was likely to result in Republicans gaining two congressional seats. The Republican lawmakers want the US Supreme Court to allow them to ignore the state court and use their GOP-friendly map for future elections.
This push for a new interpretation of the Constitution is based on the argument that "the Elections Clause does not give the state courts, or any other organ of state government, the power to second-guess the legislature's determinations". This theory has been supported by some scholars, such as Florida State law professor Michael Morley and Northern Illinois University College of Law professor Evan Bernick. Bernick has argued that this theory is not new and taps into a tradition as old as the founding of the country, where only a subset of people are allowed to rule.
However, critics of this move, such as Vikram Amar, dean of the law school at the University of Illinois, have called the notion of independent state legislatures "rubbish". He argues that the original interpreters of the Constitution's text cannot legitimately impose this new doctrine, referred to as "ISL", onto the country. Amar claims that the writers of the Constitution had a more expansive view of the term "legislature", which allowed courts to protect the rights of voters in their states.
This push by Republicans for more control at the state level is part of a broader trend where politicians favour the idea that only voters they agree with should be allowed to participate in elections. For example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised that a Republican-controlled Senate would not confirm a Supreme Court nominee for a Democratic president chosen by voters. This move by Republicans to redefine the Constitution would further solidify their advantage at the state level and could have significant implications for US democracy.
The Bureaucracy: Constitutional Authority and Power
You may want to see also
This new interpretation could unsettle US democracy
Republicans are seeking to redefine a single word in the US Constitution, which could potentially unsettle US democracy. This move comes as Republicans control more than 60% of state legislatures, despite Democrats holding slim majorities in the federal legislature. The word in question is "legislature", and the redefinition would give legislatures supremacy over elections, allowing them to override state constitutions and laws that give power to courts or governors. This would mean that legislatures could ignore court rulings, such as in the case of North Carolina's GOP-controlled legislature, which drew a congressional map that was thrown out by the state Supreme Court for being unfair.
The idea of independent state legislatures, or ISL, has been criticised by legal scholars such as Vikram and Akhil Amar, who argue that it is inconsistent with the practices of state legislatures and state constitutions in 1787 and flouts 100 years of clear precedent. They also contend that the original writers of the Constitution had a more expansive view of the term "legislature", which allowed courts to protect the rights of voters in their states.
Despite this, Republican lawmakers argue that "the Elections Clause does not give the state courts, or any other organ of state government, the power to second-guess the legislature's determinations". This theory has been supported by Florida State law professor Michael Morley and Evan Bernick, a law professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Bernick wrote that this theory "taps into a tradition that is (unfortunately) as old as the Founding but has taken on new life in recent years. This is a tradition in which only a subset of the people are allowed to rule and the rest are disregarded as somehow less than truly 'the people'".
The seeds of this idea have been attributed to a concurring opinion by then-Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election. This new interpretation of the Constitution would give unprecedented power to legislatures, and could potentially be used to block voters that politicians disagree with, threatening the democratic ideals of the United States.
Influences on the Framers of the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Republicans want to redefine the word 'legislature' in the Constitution.
Republicans want to reinterpret the Constitution to give legislatures more power over elections. They argue that "the Elections Clause does not give the state courts, or any other organ of state government, the power to second-guess the legislature's determinations".
This idea has gained traction among conservative justices and Republican lawmakers, with some Supreme Court justices expressing sympathy for the notion that state courts have overstepped their boundaries in election-related disputes. However, it has been criticised by legal scholars and experts who argue that it contradicts the original intent of the Constitution and undermines democratic ideals.
