Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Moore v. Harper

Post Reply
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17655
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Moore v. Harper

#1

Post by raison de arizona »

Was surprised to find we weren't following this, perhaps I missed it? Anyway, to boil it down:
...the case will test a legal theory known as the "independent state legislature doctrine," which asserts that "only the state legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts."
Anyway, Eastman just filed. Check out his email addy:
Image
It's a movement. Still looking for a link to the whole filing.

More about the case...
Yahoo News (The Week): Could this SCOTUS case push America toward one-party rule?
Vox: A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6
The Carolina Journal: Moore v. Harper: fact, fiction,​ and predictions
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17655
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Moore v. Harper

#2

Post by raison de arizona »

Still looking for the filing, but in the meantime, here is a nice thumbnail sketch:
Moore v. Harper, Explained
The debunked “independent state legislature theory” is on the Supreme Court’s docket, with potentially disastrous consequences.

What is Moore v. Harper about?
In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court will decide whether the North Caro­lina Supreme Court has the power to strike down the legis­lature’s illeg­ally gerry­mandered congres­sional map for viol­at­ing the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion. The legis­lat­ors have argued that a debunked inter­pret­a­tion of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion — known as the "inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory” — renders the state courts and state consti­tu­tion power­less in matters relat­ing to federal elec­tions.

Last year, North Caro­lin­a’s Repub­lican-domin­ated state legis­lature passed, on a party-line vote, an extreme partisan gerry­mander to lock in a super­ma­jor­ity of the state’s 14 congres­sional seats. The gerry­mander was so extreme that an evenly divided popu­lar vote would have awar­ded 10 of the 14 seats to the Repub­lic­ans and only four to the Demo­crats. The map was a radical stat­ist­ical outlier more favor­able to Repub­lic­ans than 99.9999% of all possible maps.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot hear partisan gerry­man­der­ing cases, voters contested the map in state court, contend­ing that the map viol­ated the state consti­tu­tion’s “free elec­tions clause,” among other provi­sions. In Febru­ary 2022, the North Caro­lina Supreme Court agreed with the voters and struck down the map, describ­ing it as an “egre­gious and inten­tional partisan gerry­mander . . . designed to enhance Repub­lican perform­ance, and thereby give a greater voice to those voters than to any others.”

The unre­pent­ant legis­lature proposed a second gerry­mandered map, prompt­ing a state court to order a special master to create a fair map for the 2022 congres­sional elec­tions. Unwill­ing to accept this outcome, two Repub­lican legis­lat­ors asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and rein­state their gerry­mandered map.
:snippity:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... -explained
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6693
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: Moore v. Harper

#3

Post by pipistrelle »

CCG is “Constitutional Counsel Group.” I doubt it’s related to the ragtag band of squatters.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17655
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Moore v. Harper

#4

Post by raison de arizona »

pipistrelle wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:23 pm CCG is “Constitutional Counsel Group.” I doubt it’s related to the ragtag band of squatters.
Yeah, it just amuses me that he has John Eastman has 1776 in the org name on his email. He's a character.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17655
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Moore v. Harper

#5

Post by raison de arizona »

Found it. It's a doozy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... %20CCJ.pdf
Screen Shot 2022-09-06 at 3.31.02 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-09-06 at 3.31.02 PM.png (44.59 KiB) Viewed 968 times
i.e. the legislature can do whatever it wants without regard to law or constitution
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Moore v. Harper

#6

Post by bob »

pipistrelle wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:23 pm CCG is “Constitutional Counsel Group.”
Unsurprisingly, its "office" is ... a UPS store.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17655
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Moore v. Harper

#7

Post by raison de arizona »

Extraordinary.
Will Doran @will_doran wrote: In a rare move, the group of all 50 states' Supreme Court chief justices wrote to SCOTUS, urging them to shoot down the argument NC Republican lawmakers are making--that there should be no checks and balances for election laws--in their "Independent State Legislature" case #ncpol

The brief is careful to say it doesn't support either party. But its first sentence (left photo) directly opposes the argument NC lawmakers made (right photo) about whether or not courts should be allowed to rule on redistricting maps, etc.

Link is here: https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2 ... _Filed.pdf
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: Moore v. Harper

#8

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Not ANOTHER case for the Supremes to use to COMPLETELY ignore precedent and make a ruling completely opposite of Dobbs. :crying:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Moore v. Harper

#9

Post by Luke »

Here's hoping.
Marc E. Elias @marceelias2h

Opinions today in US v Texas give strong indication that Moore will be be correctly dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Hard to see the 8 justices who objected to standing/redressibility could not vote to DIG Moore.

Watch Monday am for orders. My bet 8-1 w/Alito in dissent.

Quote Tweet Democracy Docket @DemocracyDocket 2h

The U.S. Supreme Court did not release a decision in Moore v. Harper today.

The Court's next order day is Monday, June 26. The Court's next opinion is Tuesday, June 27. twitter.com/DemocracyDocke…




And a catch-up on this:

The Moore v. Harper case is an ongoing United States Supreme Court case related to independent state legislature theory (ISL), arising from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party. The case concerns the elections clause in Article I, section 4 of the Constitution and whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts.0 On November 8, 2022, the political composition of the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped to a Republican majority, and three months later, the court voted to re-hear Harper v. Hall, the case underlying Moore v. Harper, but nothing had changed in the case, only the court's composition.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
New Turtle
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:43 pm

Moore v. Harper

#10

Post by New Turtle »

User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Moore v. Harper

#11

Post by bob »


Cf.:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Moore v. Harper

#12

Post by Luke »

Leo should immediately move for reconsideration.

Was a bit concerned SCOTUS would punt and declare it moot but happily surprised.









Sanctioned Josh Barnett can't help himself from saying stupid things. Dude couldn't even win in the primary but it doesn't stop him from always being RIGHT in his own mind. Josh was the guy who encouraged the AZ Leg to just appoint GOP electors for 2024.


Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
roadscholar
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Renaissance Mechanic
Contact:

Moore v. Harper

#13

Post by roadscholar »

Note to Leo: No part of a valid, coherent legal argument need resort to ALL CAPS. :fingerwag:
The bitterest truth is more wholesome than the sweetest lie.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Moore v. Harper

#14

Post by Luke »

:boxing:


Marc E. Elias @marceelias 4h
With the major SCOTUS election cases decided, here are states to watch for potential new pro-democracy litigation.
⚖️Arizona
⚖️Michigan
⚖️Mississippi
⚖️Montana
⚖️Nevada
⚖️New Mexico
⚖️New York
⚖️North Carolina
⚖️Texas
⚖️Wisconsin

Marc E. Elias @marceelias 3h
Replying to @marceelias
Here are the 17 states where my team is already litigating pro-democracy cases in advance of 2024.
⚖️Alabama
⚖️Arizona
⚖️Arkansas
⚖️Florida
⚖️Georgia
⚖️Idaho
⚖️Iow
⚖️Kansas
⚖️Louisiana
⚖️Montana
⚖️New Hampshire
⚖️New York
⚖️North Carolina
⚖️Ohio
⚖️Pennsylvania
⚖️Texas
⚖️Wisconsin


Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”