-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Supreme1 Court to hear controversial election-law case
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case that could radically3 reshape the way federal elections are conducted. At issue is a new legal theory that could conceivably give state legislatures virtually unchecked power over federal elections and erode4 major principles of democracy.
The "independent state legislature theory," referred to as ISL, could give state legislatures independent power to put in place all manner of election rules, without any available review by state courts. In its most extreme form, the theory could eliminate not just state judicial5 power over elections, but governors' vetoes, and it might even allow state legislatures to certify6 presidential electors who were not approved by the voters, an idea that Donald Trump7 sought, unsuccessfully, to put forth8 in 2020.
The facts of the case
The case before the court is a perhaps more modest exercise of the conservative ISL theory. The North Carolina state legislature, dominated by Republicans, is seeking to overturn a decision by the state Supreme Court. That court ruled that the Republican legislature, in drawing new congressional district lines after the 2020 Census9, had violated the state constitution with an extreme partisan10 gerrymander. The court twice ordered the legislature to redraw the map, and when those efforts came up short, the state court, with the aid of court-appointed election experts, redrew new lines itself.
The result was that in a state that is closely divided between Republican and Democratic voters, the new map produced an equally divided congressional delegation12, seven seats for each party, instead of the lopsided 10 or 11 GOP seats that would have been produced by the Republican plan.
Although the state constitution allows the court-drawn plan to remain in place for only one election cycle, the Republican legislature cried foul13 and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Timothy Moore, the Republican speaker of the state House of Representatives, argues that "if you look at our state constitution, nowhere does it mention, at any point, involvement by the courts in any way." What the state court did, he maintains, was "a Democratic gerrymander of the congressional districts."
The ISL theory that Moore and other conservative Republicans are putting forth is based on the election clause in the U.S. Constitution. That clause says the "Times, places and manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The North Carolina legislature, backed by the Republican National Committee, reads that clause as meaning that only the state legislature may make election rules, unless the Congress of the United States passes contrary legislation. That arguably would leave out courts and governors.
The state's argument
North Carolina's Democratic Governor Roy Cooper sees this case as the canary in the coal mine.
"We know that at the end of the day, if this court rules in favor of the Republicans, that state legislatures across the country will have exclusive control over running federal elections in their states, which stands our system of checks and balances on its head," he said.
Supporting the state government in opposing the Republican legislature is a vast array of election law experts, judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats14, and some important constitutional scholars, including Northwestern law professor Steven Calabresi, co-founder and current co-chair of the conservative Federalist Society board of directors. Along with other scholars, he contends the word "legislature," as used at the time of the founding, refers to the whole structure of state government, not just the legislature as we know it today.
"This is a huge national power grab because it suddenly says, those state constitutions don't matter in determining what the state law-making process is," he says. "Instead the accidental fact that the elections clause uses the word legislatures somehow trumps15 state constitutions, gubernatorial vetoes and state judicial review."
Lawyer Neal Katyal, who represents Common Cause, agrees.
"The state Supreme Court found that the redistricting plans violated the state constitution, and in particular, a rule to guide against malapportionment," he says.
Katyal notes that the state court found that the Republican redistricting plan "was more malapportioned than 99.999% of the plans that could have been adopted."
Lawyer David Thompson, representing the Republican legislature, replies that state constitutions are not permitted to deal with the problem of extreme partisan gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional districts. State courts, he maintains, can rule on procedural questions "but cannot enforce substantive16" provisions of the state constitution.
'Not a workable distinction'
The Conference of State Chief Justices, representing the chiefs in all 50 states, strongly disagrees. It took the unusual step of filing a brief in the ISL case.
Drawing a line between procedural and substantive issues "is not a workable distinction," says Nathan Hecht, the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court. "It would be hard to even know exactly what that meant."
The Conference of Chief Justices brief, while nominally17 not taking sides, says that were the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt the position advocated by the North Carolina state legislature, the result would be "chaos," flooding federal courts with every state dispute imaginable. Having the federal courts take over disputes involving the election of federal representatives is simply "not fathomable," Hecht said in an interview with NPR.
UCLA law professor and election law expert Richard Hasen explains why, noting that state legislatures enact18 general election laws, and state administrators19 "fill in the gaps." They "resolve ambiguities20, sometimes state attorneys general issue guidance, local election officials interpret and implement21 laws. So these end up in state court when there's a dispute."
That's what happens now. But, he says, if the theory of the Republican legislators were accepted, every one of those [state law] disputes would instead "turn into a federal dispute."
The political effect of the ISL would help Republicans in North Carolina, to be sure. But it very likely would help Democrats in some large blue states like New York and California, where state courts have greatly limited the ability of Democrats to engage in partisan gerrymanders.
How the court could react
Just how the very conservative U.S. Supreme Court will react to all of this is unclear. The three most conservative Justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — have previously22 indicated some support for the independent state legislature theory, and a fourth Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, has at least expressed interest.
North Carolina has been in the eye of election storms before. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible23 with democratic principles," the federal courts are powerless to rule on such "political questions." But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, pointed11 to other remedies — specifically state legislation or state constitutional provisions "to limit partisan considerations in redistricting." Unlike the federal constitution, state constitutions often have provisions that limit state legislatures ability to engage in partisan gerrymandering.
Lawyers for the North Carolina Republicans will undoubtedly24 be asked about that language on Wednesday. Reflecting their briefs, they will likely say that language was "dicta," meaning language that is not binding25.
A decision in the case is expected by summer.
收听单词发音 |
1
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
transcript
|
|
| n.抄本，誊本，副本，肄业证书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
radically
|
|
| ad.根本地，本质地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
erode
|
|
| v.侵蚀，腐蚀，使...减少、减弱或消失 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
certify
|
|
| vt.证明，证实；发证书(或执照)给 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
trump
|
|
| n.王牌，法宝；v.打出王牌，吹喇叭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
census
|
|
| n.(官方的)人口调查，人口普查 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
partisan
|
|
| adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
delegation
|
|
| n.代表团；派遣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
foul
|
|
| adj.污秽的；邪恶的；v.弄脏；妨害；犯规；n.犯规 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
democrats
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
trumps
|
|
| abbr.trumpets 喇叭；小号；喇叭形状的东西；喇叭筒v.（牌戏）出王牌赢（一牌或一墩）( trump的过去式 )；吹号公告，吹号庆祝；吹喇叭；捏造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
substantive
|
|
| adj.表示实在的；本质的、实质性的；独立的；n.实词，实名词；独立存在的实体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
nominally
|
|
| 在名义上，表面地； 应名儿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
enact
|
|
| vt.制定(法律)；上演，扮演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
administrators
|
|
| n.管理者( administrator的名词复数 )；有管理（或行政）才能的人；（由遗嘱检验法庭指定的）遗产管理人；奉派暂管主教教区的牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
ambiguities
|
|
| n.歧义( ambiguity的名词复数 )；意义不明确；模棱两可的意思；模棱两可的话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
implement
|
|
| n.(pl.)工具，器具；vt.实行，实施，执行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
incompatible
|
|
| adj.不相容的，不协调的，不相配的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
购买
在百度中搜索