A radical election theory has day in court. Justices appear divided.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday morning on a case that could have profound effects on the way elections are run in the United States. It is one of the most important and polarizing cases of the current term, and the outcome might – maybe – be a compromise.
Over three hours, the justices probed, challenged, muttered, and at times laughed their way through a case about recent political gerrymandering in North Carolina. Looming over the argument in the case of Moore v. Harper was the phrase that has energized and frightened court watchers in almost equal measure since the court took up the case in June: the independent state legislature theory.
The ISL theory – a fringe interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause that has never been endorsed by a court majority – holds that state legislatures have exclusive power to regulate federal elections,
