In Electoral Disputes,State Justices Are Less Reliable GOP Allies than the U.S. Supreme Court—That’s the “Problem” the Independent State Legislature Claim Hopes to Solve
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2023
In Electoral Disputes,State Justices Are Less Reliable GOP Allies than the U.S. Supreme Court—That’s the “Problem” the Independent State Legislature Claim Hopes to Solve
Scholars have identified serious drawbacks to the independent state legislature (ISL) claim, which precludes state-court review of election laws, thus preventing state guarantees like “free and fair elections” from being enforced. Considering its flaws, we ask why ISL would be pursued so fervently and why the Supreme Court, in Moore v. Harper, adopted a version of it. Examining data that compare election-law outcomes in federal and state supreme courts, we found that state supreme court justices, even if Republican, are not reliable supporters of the GOP electoral agenda. The Roberts court, by contrast, has voted in the GOP-supported direction in most election-law cases it has decided. This, we argue, is why ISL is promoted so vigorously: it takes electoral disputes—such as who can vote, what the rules for counting are, and such—out of the hands of state courts and places them squarely into the hands of the Supreme Court, a reliable partisan ally.
AdelmanLynn. 2019. The Roberts Court’s assault on democracy. Harvard Law & Policy Review14:131–58.
2.
AmarVikram DavidAmarAkhil Reed. 2022. Eradicating bush-league arguments root and branch: The Article II independent-state-legislature notion and related rubbish. The Supreme Court Review2021:1–51.
3.
BaudeWill. 8March2022. Amar and Amar on independent state legislatures. The Volokh Conspiracy. Available from reason.com.
4.
BenteleKeith G.O’BrienErin E.2013. Jim Crow 2.0? Why states consider and adopt restrictive voter access policies. Perspectives on Politics11 (4): 1088–1116.
5.
BiskupicJoan. 2July2021. John Roberts takes aim at the Voting Rights Act and political money disclosures, again. CNN Politics. Available from www.cnn.com.
6.
BiskupicJoan. 6December2022. How William Rehnquist led to the new monumental challenge to presidential election rules. CNN Politics. Available from www.cnn.com.
7.
BiskupicJoan. 2023. Nine black robes: Inside the Supreme Court’s drive to the right and its historic consequences. New York, NY: William Morrow/HarperCollins Publishers.
8.
Bradfield v. Wells. 1992. 262 Ga. 198.
9.
BradyHenry E.McNultyJohn E.2011. Turning out to vote: The costs of finding and getting to the polling place. American Political Science Review105 (1): 115–34.
10.
BrowerMac. 21November2022. Eight recent cases where the ISL theory appears. Democracy Docket. Available from www.democracydocket.com.
11.
BrownRebecca L.EpsteinLee. 2023. Is the U.S. Supreme Court a reliable backstop for an overreaching U.S. president? Maybe, but is an overreaching (partisan) Court worse?Presidential Studies Quarterly53 (2): 234–55.
12.
Bush v. Gore. 2000. 531 U.S. 98.
13.
Cardona v. Power. 1966. 384 U.S. 672.
14.
ChemerinskyErwin. 24March2023. Remarks on judging the judiciary. Pepperdine Law School. Available from law.pepperdine.edu.
15.
City of Boerne v. Flores. 1997. 521 U.S. 507.
16.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. 2008. 553 U.S. 181.
17.
DawoodYasmin. 2015. Campaign finance and American democracy. Annual Review of Political Science18:329–48.
18.
DevinsNealBaumLawrence. 2019. The company they keep: How partisan divisions came to the Supreme Court. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
DevinsNealManskerNicole. 2010. Public opinion and state supreme courts. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law13:455–510.
20.
DouglasJoshua A.2016. State judges and the right to vote. Ohio State Law Journal77:1–48.
21.
FragaBernard L.MillerMichael G.2022. Who do voter ID laws keep from voting?Journal of Politics84:1091–1105.
22.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.2021. Judging inequality: State supreme courts and the inequality crisis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
23.
GouldJonathan S.PozenDavid E.2022. Structural biases in structural constitutional law. New York University Law Review97:59–136.
24.
HasenRichard L.2004. Buckley is dead, long live Buckley. University of Pennsylvania Law Review153:31–72.
25.
HasenRichard L.2019. Polarization and the judiciary. Annual Review of Political Science22:261–76.
26.
HicksWilliam D.McKeeSeth C.SellersMitchell D.SmithDaniel A.2015. A principle or a strategy? Voter identification laws and partisan competition in the American states. Political Research Quarterly68 (1): 18–33.
27.
HoweAmy. 7December2022. Court seems unwilling to embrace broad version of “independent state legislature” theory. SCOTUSblog. Available from www.scotusblog.com.
28.
Hunnicutt v. Myers. 2002. 39 P.3d 182.
29.
Hunter v. Underwood. 1986. 471 U.S. 222.
30.
IssacharoffSamuel. 2010. On political corruption. Harvard Law Review124:118–42.
31.
JonesBradley. 8May2018. Most Americans want to limit campaign spending, say big donors have greater political influence. Pew Research Center. Available from www.pewresearch.org.
32.
KlarmanMichael J.2020. Foreword: The degradation of American democracy—and the Court. Harvard Law Review134:1–264.
33.
Kramer v. Union Free School Dist. 1969. 395 U.S. 621.
34.
KrassMark S.2022. Debunking the non-delegation doctrine for state regulation of federal elections. Virginia Law Review108:1091–1162.
35.
League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Lee. 2022. 595 F. Supp. 3d 1042.
36.
LeeFrances. 2016. Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
LitmanLeah M.ShawKatherine. 2022. Textualism, judicial supremacy, and the independent state legislature theory. Wisconsin Law Review2022:1235–74.
38.
LutCardona tigJ. Michael.3October2022. There is absolutely nothing to support the “independent state legislature” theory. The Atlantic.
39.
ManheimLisa MarshallPorterElizabeth G.2019. The elephant in the room: Intentional voter suppression. The Supreme Court Review2018:213–55.
40.
Moore v. Harper. 2023. 600 U.S. 1.
41.
MorleyMichael T.2020. The independent state legislature doctrine, federal elections, and state constitutions. Georgia Law Review55:1–94.
42.
Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant. 1916. 241 U.S. 565.
43.
PerettiTerri. 2016. Judicial partisanship in voter identification litigation. Election Law Journal15:214–31.
44.
PerettiTerri Jennings. 2020. Partisan supremacy: How the GOP enlisted courts to rig America’s election rules. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
45.
SavageDavid G.4June2021. Analysis: How the Supreme Court has tilted election law to favor the Republican Party. Los Angeles Times.
46.
ShapiroCarolyn. 2022. The independent state legislature theory, federal courts, and state law. University of Chicago Law Review90:137–201.
47.
Shelby County v. Holder. 2013. 570 U.S. 529.
48.
Smiley v. Holm. 1932. 285 U.S. 355.
49.
SmithHayward H.2002. History of the Article II independent state legislature doctrine. Florida State University Law Review29:731–87.
50.
SmithHayward H.2022. Revisiting the history of the independent state legislature doctrine. St. Mary’s Law Journal53:445–582.
51.
SpaethHarold J.EpsteinLeeMartinAndrew D.SegalJeffrey A.RugerTheodore J.BeneshSara C.2022 Supreme Court Database, Version 2022 Release 01. Available from http://supremecourtdatabase.org
52.
StonePeter. 16December2022. Conservative donors pour “dark money” into case that could upend U.S. voting law. The Guardian.
53.
United States v. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. 1957. 352 U.S. 567.
54.
VielmettiBruce. 29June2020. Milwaukee federal judge admonished for article about U.S. Supreme Court. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Available from www.jsonline.com.
55.
WeingartnerMichael. 2023. Liquidating the independent state legislature theory. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy46:135–220.
56.
WillcoxonNicoleSaadLydia. 14October2022. Eight in 10 Americans favor early voting, photo ID laws. Gallup. Available from news.gallup.com.
