The now quaint seeming Voting Rights Act would have been ineffective if this concept was in play.

We have a similar thing going on in Canada as well. A province here wants the ability to opt out of federal legislation that they don't agree with - including the federal criminal code. This one will definitely be a rougher path to realization.

The ISLT emerged as a serious threat to democracy once a few Justices of the Supreme Court began issuing writings suggesting their openness to, at the very least, considering it.

During the 2020 elections, litigants seeking to keep then-President Trump in office deployed the ISLT in cases designed to change which votes counted (for example, trying to invalidate certain mailed ballots). The Court rejected all those challenges. That could have been the end of the road for the ISLT. But a few Justices in concurrences, dissents, etc. suggested there might be something there.

Other litigants around the country picked up the signal. For example, in this case, the gerrymanderers have been trying to use the ISLT to defend their gerrymanders.

Because of this dynamic, it’s very important that a majority of the Court send a strong message in this case that the ISLT isn’t valid.

– Tom

This is absolutely not true. Both parties have their problems but at least the Democrats are trying to legislate and get things done, while the GOP is just interested in breaking everything and blaming the Democrats for it. Disagree with the policy goals or substance of the bills all you like, but it's pretty clear at this point that only one of the major parties is actually interested in governing.

Eliza: The very provision of the U.S. Constitution that North Carolina legislators are trying to weaponize in this case–the Elections Clause–also gives Congress the power to act to ensure free, fair, and representative elections. Namely, the Elections Clause gives Congress the power to “make or alter” rules for federal elections. The Framers gave Congress that overriding power precisely because they were worried that state lawmakers would abuse their authority over federal elections and do things like draw unfair maps and make voting more difficult (sound familiar?).

Congress should–regardless of the outcome in Moore v. Harper–pass democracy reform legislation to protect the right to vote, fight back against racist voter suppression tactics, eliminate partisan gerrymandering, and protect against election sabotage and interference efforts. The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would have put these policies in place, and Congress should reintroduce and pass this bill, which would mitigate some of the worst harms of the independent state legislature theory (if the Court does adopt it).

For more AMAs on this topic, subscribe to r/IAmA_Politics, and check out our other topic-specific AMA subreddits here.

Tim Moore is the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives. Rebecca Harper is a voter in North Carolina. Last year, North Carolina’s Republican-dominated state legislature—led by Moore—passed, on a party-line vote, an extreme partisan gerrymander to lock in a supermajority of the state’s 14 congressional seats. Harper, along with other voters and non-profit groups, successfully contested the map in state court, contending that the map violated the state constitution’s “free elections clause,” among other provisions. But Moore wasn’t willing to accept the state court’s ruling, so he asked the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved. Before the U.S. Supreme Court, Moore has invoked the so-called “independent state legislature theory,” the dangerous theory that state legislatures have near exclusive power to set the rules for federal elections.

The ISLT would have catastrophic effects for our elections if it became the law of the land. It would kneecap the state-level movement to end partisan gerrymandering. But it could also endanger the right to a secret ballot in many state constitutions, the right to cast an absentee ballot in at least sixteen states, ranked-choice voting regimes in Alaska and Maine, automatic voter registration in Michigan and Nevada, and on and on. In all, the theory could upend more than 170 constitutional provisions and more than 650 state statutes that protect your right to vote and make sure that elections are free and fair. That’s a recipe to upend elections if there ever were one. -- Ethan

[removed]

ESB: The remarkable thing about the independent state legislature theory is how crystal clear history and tradition cut against the theory. Mountains of historical evidence—from the Framers’ intent to limit the power of state legislatures when they drafted the Elections Clause, to the state constitutional constraints that existed at the time of founding as checks and balances on state legislatures, to the existence of state court judicial review at that time—all of it should lead to the rejection of the ISLT. The originalist case against the ISLT is a slam dunk. And with so many justices purporting to use originalism to interpret the Constitution, the short answer is yes, I believe there is a majority of the court that could and should reject petitioners’ arguments.

And that’s before we get into any of the many other strong arguments against the ISLT.

Opening Arguments, a legal podcast for non-lawyers, did an episode on this very subject: https://openargs.com/oa618-the-case-that-could-allow-republicans-to-steal-2024/

Mitch McConnell cementing obstructionism of Democratic leadership (and then blaming the Dems for failing to get anything done) as the GOP core strategy.

[removed]

Try this until OP gets back: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/moore-v-harper-scotus-elections-amicus-brief/672281/

[removed]

Say this does pass the Supreme Court - what recourse would we have from a legislative perspective? Would it require a constitutional amendment? Federal laws being passed?

How could we hypothetically come back from this?

[removed]

If you could pinpoint a moment in political history that led to this being treated as a serious threat to democracy rather than a fringe theory that no one really ever thought would come to pass, what would it be?

Where's the branch in the timeline that got us here?

What is the actual worst case scenario in your opinion. It seems like some people think This will only effect state elections, while others are claiming this will end democracy. Where is the truth?

Do you believe that Roberts can convince one of the (more) crazies to flip to the side of democracy?

Who exactly are Moore and Harper and how exactly did this case become one that could upend all elections. What is the issue at hand here?

[removed]

Thanks for doing this AMA about such an important case that the media just isn't covering enough! What, in your view, are the number-one strongest arguments for each side of this case?

Cool, can shifu run on a PLC board? Or similar computing unit? Any restriction so far?

[removed]

Ooohhhh! TY! I was originally coming at this 100% from an end-user perspective. This is awesome!

Zoom's CEO Eric Yuan once told me:"Just do it!" And that's how I got started.