This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Smiley v. Holm will, undoubtedly be referenced as stare decisis as it directly, and specifically relates to redistricting (In Minnesota) and the state's constitutionally mandated "legislative process." There is an existing good article on Smiley v. Holm already on Wikipedia. Just need to add the link 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:6878:E9CE:3A3F:7CE1 ( talk) 13:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
that none of the content below, removed in full on October 20, is worthy of inclusion?
At the time of Moore, current or former associates of the Federalist Society held a 6-3 supermajority on the court. The Federalist Society, a conservative-libertarian group, advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and under the direction of Leonard Leo has for many years groomed candidates for appointments to federal judgeships. Leo was instrumental in vetting Supreme Court appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito for president George W. Bush, as well as president Donald Trump's three appointees. Leading up to the 2020 elections, justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh expressed support for the ISL view that state courts could not usurp the role of the legislature in establishing federal elections rules.
Leo oversees a network of organizations funded largely by dark money that advocate for various conservative causes. One organization, the Honest Elections Project (HEP), is a major proponent of the ISL and asserts that a textualist or originalist reading of the Constitution grants state legislatures exclusive authority to establish and enforce state election rules for federal elections, unfettered by oversight from state courts or governors, and without state constitutional restrictions. This interpretation was contrary to previous interpretations of the Constitution, which held that legislatures, courts and governors shared that authority. Critics said that if the ISL was adopted, it would be possible for state legislatures controlled by one party to establish and enforce election rules to suit their partisan objectives, including rejecting certain ballots or procedures to overrule the voting majority in federal elections and declare their party candidates the winners. The only restriction of this authority would be the Electoral Count Act, which requires governors to certify their states' election results. By 2022, thirty of fifty state legislatures were controlled by the Republican Party. HEP had for years filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court to promote the ISL.
Critics contend Supreme Court adoption of ISL has the potential to end American democracy in its current form. In a July 2022 research paper entitled "The Supreme Court's Role in the Degradation of U.S. Democracy," the Campaign Legal Center, founded by Republican Trevor Potter, concluded that the Roberts Court "has turned on our democracy" and was on an "anti-democratic crusade" that had "accelerated and become increasingly extreme with the arrival" of Trump's three appointees. Liberal election law expert Richard Hasen wrote that adoption of ISL "could provide the path for election subversion." In October 2022, Obama administration acting solicitor general Neal Katyal joined former federal appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig and other attorneys to file a "merits brief" with the court, arguing against adoption of ISL. Luttig, who has long been highly regarded in conservative legal circles, characterized Moore as "without question the most significant case in the history of our nation for American democracy."
me ( talk) 17:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I think should be included Wikipietime ( talk) 11:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Masem, I think it's better to make it easier for readers to find the two key briefs from the attorneys who argued the case, by specifically breaking them out soibangla ( talk) 17:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Pierremariejeanahlstrom: The Question Presented field in the infobox is a verbatim quote from the petitioners writ of certiorari, and is not language we can change, including the excessive quote and seemingly NPOV stance. We can't we rewrite it unleash thr Court itself presented a reformed question,vwhuch I don't see here. Masem ( t) 18:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The new addition is too long, and includes too much that is speculative. Yes, the change at NC's SC and their rehearing of the underlying case is important, and thus there may be a possible moot case at SCOTUS. But we cannot take the request that SCOTUS made to assume they will render a decision related to mootness. That's too much detail. (We normally do not include SCOTUS's requests to parties or third-parties for more information after a case is certified, that's just too much detail for WP's level of coverage). Masem ( t) 15:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
too much that is speculative. It does not
assume they will render a decision related to mootness. You use the term "may," I used the term "might" (not would) which is consistent with what the reliable source suggests at its close; it's why the source was written in the first place. By omitting the SCOTUS order, readers cannot know the genesis of why the case might become moot and the potential consequences thereof: Moore gets dismissed. It is also important for readers to know the order arose due to the change in the political composition of the NC SC and its reconsideration of the prior ruling. We can later add the eventual outcome when it happens to bring it all full circle. soibangla ( talk) 16:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The Supreme Court case has been resolved 6-3, disproving the ISL theory. How should it be updated? Baudshaw ( talk) 14:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
On Moore v. Harper, the 6–3 division is on mootness. Justice Alito did not sign onto the part of the dissent embracing the allegedly "mild" version of the ISL theory. The following needs to be reworded to reflect that Justice Alito did not say whether or not he supports the ISL theory. "In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures sole power over elections, rejecting the independent state legislature theory." Currently, this implies that Alito rejects this conclusion. He did not say one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 03:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The lead says that the Court ruled the "Elections Clause does not give state legislatures sole power over elections" in a 6–3 vote. Thomas and Gorsuch actually agreed with that statement; they said governors could veto election laws. Thomas and Gorsuch did embrace an allegedly "mild" version of ISL. Alito did not say anything about ISL in this case; he only joined the part on mootness. I guess the intro could be rephrased as "The Court decided 6–3 that they could rule on the case. The majority rejected ISL almost entirely." That may get closer to the main thrust of the decision while not inaccurately imputing ideas to the dissenters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 03:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not trying to disrupt. I am trying to make sure this is accurate and from a neutral point of view. I did mess up with the intro for the Democratic backsliding article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 04:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the intro should be changed to read "In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that it could decide the case. The Court then decided that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures sole power over elections, rejecting the independent state legislature theory." This will prevent confusion over what the dissent's ideas were, while still emphasizing the main thrust of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 04:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the main problem with the intro is the vote count. 8 justices (all except Alito) said "the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures sole power over elections". Alito did not say what he thought about that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 04:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to be clear here. The concern is the vote count "6–3" implies that the dissenters believed the opposite thing from whatever the article says majority ruled. However, in this case, Alito only said that this case is moot. Thomas & Gorsuch said the case is moot, and if it was not moot, the ISL means that states follow their normal lawmaking function, but their authority in federal election laws comes from the federal constitution, so state constitutional limits don't apply. I am trying to figure out how to accurately state that it was a 6–3 decision while not falsely implying disagreement on issues where the justices actually agreed. It could be rephrased as 6–3 saying that "The Court decided state election laws cannot avoid review against state constitutions". Thomas & Gorsuch said the opposite in their opinion. Alito did not say 1 way or the other. Mootness is key to understanding Alito's vote; he didn't really say anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 04:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The article is internally inconsistent. The lead says that this is a landmark decision, but the final paragraph says that it could have been so. The article should agree with itself. KarlFrei ( talk) 15:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Smiley v. Holm will, undoubtedly be referenced as stare decisis as it directly, and specifically relates to redistricting (In Minnesota) and the state's constitutionally mandated "legislative process." There is an existing good article on Smiley v. Holm already on Wikipedia. Just need to add the link 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:6878:E9CE:3A3F:7CE1 ( talk) 13:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
that none of the content below, removed in full on October 20, is worthy of inclusion?
At the time of Moore, current or former associates of the Federalist Society held a 6-3 supermajority on the court. The Federalist Society, a conservative-libertarian group, advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and under the direction of Leonard Leo has for many years groomed candidates for appointments to federal judgeships. Leo was instrumental in vetting Supreme Court appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito for president George W. Bush, as well as president Donald Trump's three appointees. Leading up to the 2020 elections, justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh expressed support for the ISL view that state courts could not usurp the role of the legislature in establishing federal elections rules.
Leo oversees a network of organizations funded largely by dark money that advocate for various conservative causes. One organization, the Honest Elections Project (HEP), is a major proponent of the ISL and asserts that a textualist or originalist reading of the Constitution grants state legislatures exclusive authority to establish and enforce state election rules for federal elections, unfettered by oversight from state courts or governors, and without state constitutional restrictions. This interpretation was contrary to previous interpretations of the Constitution, which held that legislatures, courts and governors shared that authority. Critics said that if the ISL was adopted, it would be possible for state legislatures controlled by one party to establish and enforce election rules to suit their partisan objectives, including rejecting certain ballots or procedures to overrule the voting majority in federal elections and declare their party candidates the winners. The only restriction of this authority would be the Electoral Count Act, which requires governors to certify their states' election results. By 2022, thirty of fifty state legislatures were controlled by the Republican Party. HEP had for years filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court to promote the ISL.
Critics contend Supreme Court adoption of ISL has the potential to end American democracy in its current form. In a July 2022 research paper entitled "The Supreme Court's Role in the Degradation of U.S. Democracy," the Campaign Legal Center, founded by Republican Trevor Potter, concluded that the Roberts Court "has turned on our democracy" and was on an "anti-democratic crusade" that had "accelerated and become increasingly extreme with the arrival" of Trump's three appointees. Liberal election law expert Richard Hasen wrote that adoption of ISL "could provide the path for election subversion." In October 2022, Obama administration acting solicitor general Neal Katyal joined former federal appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig and other attorneys to file a "merits brief" with the court, arguing against adoption of ISL. Luttig, who has long been highly regarded in conservative legal circles, characterized Moore as "without question the most significant case in the history of our nation for American democracy."
me ( talk) 17:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I think should be included Wikipietime ( talk) 11:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Masem, I think it's better to make it easier for readers to find the two key briefs from the attorneys who argued the case, by specifically breaking them out soibangla ( talk) 17:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Pierremariejeanahlstrom: The Question Presented field in the infobox is a verbatim quote from the petitioners writ of certiorari, and is not language we can change, including the excessive quote and seemingly NPOV stance. We can't we rewrite it unleash thr Court itself presented a reformed question,vwhuch I don't see here. Masem ( t) 18:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The new addition is too long, and includes too much that is speculative. Yes, the change at NC's SC and their rehearing of the underlying case is important, and thus there may be a possible moot case at SCOTUS. But we cannot take the request that SCOTUS made to assume they will render a decision related to mootness. That's too much detail. (We normally do not include SCOTUS's requests to parties or third-parties for more information after a case is certified, that's just too much detail for WP's level of coverage). Masem ( t) 15:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
too much that is speculative. It does not
assume they will render a decision related to mootness. You use the term "may," I used the term "might" (not would) which is consistent with what the reliable source suggests at its close; it's why the source was written in the first place. By omitting the SCOTUS order, readers cannot know the genesis of why the case might become moot and the potential consequences thereof: Moore gets dismissed. It is also important for readers to know the order arose due to the change in the political composition of the NC SC and its reconsideration of the prior ruling. We can later add the eventual outcome when it happens to bring it all full circle. soibangla ( talk) 16:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The Supreme Court case has been resolved 6-3, disproving the ISL theory. How should it be updated? Baudshaw ( talk) 14:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
On Moore v. Harper, the 6–3 division is on mootness. Justice Alito did not sign onto the part of the dissent embracing the allegedly "mild" version of the ISL theory. The following needs to be reworded to reflect that Justice Alito did not say whether or not he supports the ISL theory. "In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures sole power over elections, rejecting the independent state legislature theory." Currently, this implies that Alito rejects this conclusion. He did not say one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 03:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The lead says that the Court ruled the "Elections Clause does not give state legislatures sole power over elections" in a 6–3 vote. Thomas and Gorsuch actually agreed with that statement; they said governors could veto election laws. Thomas and Gorsuch did embrace an allegedly "mild" version of ISL. Alito did not say anything about ISL in this case; he only joined the part on mootness. I guess the intro could be rephrased as "The Court decided 6–3 that they could rule on the case. The majority rejected ISL almost entirely." That may get closer to the main thrust of the decision while not inaccurately imputing ideas to the dissenters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 03:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not trying to disrupt. I am trying to make sure this is accurate and from a neutral point of view. I did mess up with the intro for the Democratic backsliding article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 04:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the intro should be changed to read "In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that it could decide the case. The Court then decided that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures sole power over elections, rejecting the independent state legislature theory." This will prevent confusion over what the dissent's ideas were, while still emphasizing the main thrust of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 04:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the main problem with the intro is the vote count. 8 justices (all except Alito) said "the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures sole power over elections". Alito did not say what he thought about that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 04:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to be clear here. The concern is the vote count "6–3" implies that the dissenters believed the opposite thing from whatever the article says majority ruled. However, in this case, Alito only said that this case is moot. Thomas & Gorsuch said the case is moot, and if it was not moot, the ISL means that states follow their normal lawmaking function, but their authority in federal election laws comes from the federal constitution, so state constitutional limits don't apply. I am trying to figure out how to accurately state that it was a 6–3 decision while not falsely implying disagreement on issues where the justices actually agreed. It could be rephrased as 6–3 saying that "The Court decided state election laws cannot avoid review against state constitutions". Thomas & Gorsuch said the opposite in their opinion. Alito did not say 1 way or the other. Mootness is key to understanding Alito's vote; he didn't really say anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B150:19AC:8055:8D1D:745E:4CC7 ( talk) 04:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The article is internally inconsistent. The lead says that this is a landmark decision, but the final paragraph says that it could have been so. The article should agree with itself. KarlFrei ( talk) 15:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)