The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the "independent state legislature" theory, a fringe, GOP-backed effort to radically change federal election rules. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 opinion.
State legislatures don't have exclusive and independent authority to set federal election rules, Roberts wrote, over dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.
Heading into this Supreme Court term, which started in October, voting rights proponents feared Moore v. Harper. The elections case from North Carolina raised the fringe theory that could give state legislatures across the country unfettered control over federal elections.
But the Constitution's elections clause "does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review," Roberts wrote.
As MSNBC columnist Jessica Levinson explained in December: "If ... the Supreme Court accepts the broadest version of the independent state legislature theory, then state lawmakers will, with few exceptions, have exclusive power to make decisions about federal elections. Those decisions might involve whether there's early voting, how many polling places there are and where, if voting by mail is allowed and even if the people's vote for president should be accepted."
But oral argument in the case earlier this term suggested that even a majority of this court wasn't jumping to accept the most extreme version of the theory.
Read more of my coverage on the Supreme Court's latest decision here.
