What's the status of this one out of curiosity?

As I understand it no oral arguments date is set?

Arguments on December 7th.

Looks like about a billion amicus briefs have been filed.

Ah thank you. That seems like a lot haha

today is the hearing day. question before the court is:

Quote:

---

Whether a State's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives . . . prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof," U.S. CONST. art. I, 4, cl. 1, and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.

---

My pre-argument prediction is that based on the bolded, we get a narrow ruling that a state constitution can't just say "courts can ensure fair and free elections" as sufficient to overturn a state legislature's congressional map drawing. but court will leave open ability for state constitutions to have firm, unambiguous rules for the legislatures to follow that state courts can enforce.

Audio Feed

More background Here

BMX Bandit said:

---

today is the hearing day. question before the court is:

Quote:

---

Whether a State's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives . . . prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof," U.S. CONST. art. I, 4, cl. 1, and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.

---

My pre-argument prediction is that based on the bolded, we get a narrow ruling that a state constitution can't just say "courts can ensure fair and free elections" as sufficient to overturn a state legislature's congressional map drawing. but court will leave open ability for state constitutions to have firm, unambiguous rules for the legislatures to follow that state courts can enforce.

---

I think perhaps they will go a little bit further and say that, although the acts of the legislature must comply with the US constitution and federal law, state courts may not intervene in the line drawing process on the basis of state law or state constitutions. That would not deprive state courts of jurisdiction, it would just mean that any challenge would, by definition, be a federal question and removable to federal court.

Except some states have very specific guidelines for drawing districts as part of the their constitution.

New York is a good example. The legislature gerrymandered so much for the Democrats that even their liberal top court (no idea what their top court is called since Supreme Court is their trial court) said it was a violation of the state constitution. The redrawn map is why the Republicans picked up either 4 or 5 seats in New York, and without those, they likely would not have won the House. The state constitution prohibits extreme partisan gerrymandering.

up first is NC legislature

Thomas: explain exactly what we are reviewing and our jurisdiction since this came from a state supreme court.

Thomas: (politely) thats not what I asked. Why is this case here, its a state supreme court ruling

this is rhetorical by the way, Thomas knows the answer.

Roberts: state legislature maps are subject to governor's veto, you concede that. why is it different here? constitution doesn't say governor can veto

lawyer: under common law, governors could veto, so they are in theory part of legislature.

Rapier108 said:

---

Except some states have very specific guidelines for drawing districts as part of the their constitution.

New York is a good example. The legislature gerrymandered so much for the Democrats that even their liberal top court (no idea what their top court is called since Supreme Court is their trial court) said it was a violation of the state constitution. The redrawn map is why the Republicans picked up either 4 or 5 seats in New York, and without those, they likely would not have won the House. The state constitution prohibits extreme partisan gerrymandering.

---

While that was beneficial to Republicans, a lot of those state rules are not. This also has ramifications beyond redistricting, and ending the constant lawfare Democrats have engaged in to change election rules to their favor.

Barrett: you do have a problem tying to say why procedural limitations are okay, but substantive are not.

lawyer: here is what Madison said.

Barrett: so you are pulling from outside sources, not the text of the constitution. (appeal to Thomas)

JAckson: what procedural limits can a state legislature put in place?

lawyer: presentment to governor for signature


I think thats a mistake. he's asking for too much. should be focusing on how this NC law is vague.

Rapier108 said:

---

Except some states have very specific guidelines for drawing districts as part of the their constitution.

New York is a good example. The legislature gerrymandered so much for the Democrats that even their liberal top court (no idea what their top court is called since Supreme Court is their trial court) said it was a violation of the state constitution. The redrawn map is why the Republicans picked up either 4 or 5 seats in New York, and without those, they likely would not have won the House. The state constitution prohibits extreme partisan gerrymandering.

---

It's known as the Court of Appeals.

Sotomayor: the substantive v procedural distinction you make does not make sense because "time place and manner" is procedural. Could court reject a map drawing bill if done in a special session in which that item was not legally set for the session as required by state law?

lawyer: that would be substantive, so court could not review that.



disagree with his answer here. thats procedural.

Roberts: If NC had a more precise rule rather than this vague free reign, would that be okay?

lawyer: no substantive limit can ever be allowed. back up argument is that there is no standard in place, just vague power.


no chance some broad rule comes out of this.

Kavananaugh: you are going beyond Rehnquist concurrence in Bush v. Gore. are you saying he was wrong?
your "best case" doesn't even support your argument, that case was remanded to state supreme court.

Roberts: your reply brief says in alternative there are some substantive limits can be put in by a state constitution and enforced by state court. what are examples of those?

lawyer: gives examples of on gerrymandering, etc.

Sotomayor: your secondary argument is that this NC constittution is so vague its unconstitutional. the elections clause doesn't even matter for that argument, right?

lawyer: pretty much.

Gorsuch is trying to rehabilitate this lawyer, so he may be on his side.

Bush v. Gore, the case that keeps on giving...and taking away.

If there are any justices siding this lawyer's side, they did not do him any favors during his argument.

the attorney talking now, Neal Katyal who was acting solicitor general under obama, going right at Thomas on why textualism means he should reject the independent legislature theory.

Gorsuch: don't all the writers of the times and founders consider a governor veto as part of the legislative function here? its in article I in constitution. no one thinks NC is exercising a legislative function here.

Roberts: how is this NC statute providing a standard? it just says the elections must be free and fair.

Roberts: Justice Thomas, anything futher?

Thomas: not really, but I've been waiting 30 years to ask this lawyer a question.

laughter from all

gorsuch: what if state constitution required gerrymandering? that okay?

lawyer: it may have other issues, but wouldn't violate elections clause

gorsuch: the NC court spent three paragraphs on this election clause issue, opinion was over 125 pages long. they haven't really even considered the issue. what do we do with that?

lawyer: its three paragraphs because not a hard question. no need to send it back.

Any thoughts? These arguments got way into the weeds on a variety of long rabbit holes.

Other than Sotomayor and Brown Jackson demonstrating their usual incompetence, Barrett kind of surprised me. Maybe she was taking the devil's advocate route but hard to determine.

I didn't hear argument from Solicitor general, but heard all of first two.

thought Sotomayor did a job today in my opinion. She definitely hit the better of the lawyer for NC republican legislators.

Jackson had a good point, but really struggled to articulate it or formulae any good quesuijs to support it.

My post-argument guess is that this be 6-3, maybe 7-2, against the "independent legislature" theory, but the vagueness of "free and fair" gets it sent back for more opinion from NC Supreme Court

BMX Bandit said:

---

I didn't hear argument from Solicitor general, but heard all of first two.

thought Sotomayor did a job today in my opinion. She definitely hit the better of the lawyer for NC republican legislators.

Jackson had a good point, but really struggled to articulate it or formulae any good quesuijs to support it.

My post-argument guess is that this be 6-3, maybe 7-2, against the "independent legislature" theory, but the vagueness of "free and fair" gets it sent back for more opinion from NC Supreme Court

---

I'm a bit surprised this case made the SCOTUS at all.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I didn't hear argument from Solicitor general, but heard all of first two.

thought Sotomayor did a job today in my opinion. She definitely hit the better of the lawyer for NC republican legislators.

Jackson had a good point, but really struggled to articulate it or formulae any good quesuijs to support it.

My post-argument guess is that this be 6-3, maybe 7-2, against the "independent legislature" theory, but the vagueness of "free and fair" gets it sent back for more opinion from NC Supreme Court

---

Was I imagining things, or was Jackson not just automatically on the side of the government? She sounded like a judge.

This is government against government so both sides are technically on the government's side

BMX Bandit said:

---

Roberts: If NC had a more precise rule rather than this vague free reign, would that be okay?

lawyer: no substantive limit can ever be allowed. back up argument is that there is no standard in place, just vague power.


no chance some broad rule comes out of this.

---

Broad rule, so ACB is going to write the opinion?

BMX Bandit said:

---

This is government against government so both sides are technically on the government's side

---

Oh, I see. I just noticed that she was pointing out pros and cons to each witness, rather than a constant obvious bias as expected.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

What's the status of this one out of curiosity?

As I understand it no oral arguments date is set?

---

Oral argument on December 07. All indications point to the Court overturning the long standing deference afforded to state legislatures. My prediction is state legislatures will have little to no control longer and that this is the beginning of the next revolution.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Roberts: Justice Thomas, anything futher?

Thomas: not really, but I've been waiting 30 years to ask this lawyer a question.

laughter from all

---

Whats the context of that joke?

Quote:

---

All indications point to the Court overturning the long standing deference afforded to state legislatures.

---

You are confused. The "long standing" rule is that state courts can review legislative decisions on map drawing

Quote:

---

My prediction is state legislatures will have little to no control longer and that this is the beginning of the next revolution.

---

Yeah, you are definitely Confused