Elections and the Courts - Independent State Legislature Theory and Beyond
As election administration has become more politicized, litigation has increased state and federal courts' role in reviewing policy. Perhaps the most consequential example of this is Moore v. Harper, a redistricting case out of North Carolina that addresses Independent State Legislature theory and has immense implications for election administration across the U.S. This panel discusses how the court system has come to play a larger role in elections, what that has meant for voters, and the potential ramifications of Moore v. Harper and Independent State Legislature theory. The day after this panel, the Supreme Court heard Moore v. Harper arguments.
Key Quotes:
“It’s not often you get to be on a panel in Washington D.C. and use the phrase ‘pandora’s box’ and actually be correct in using that phrase. I do think [independent state legislature theory] really could be that... Because of its novelty and the relatively thin jurisprudence around it, it’s hard to predict exactly how far the reach of it will go and what all the implications will be.” - Michael Thorning
“In election administration we rely on certainty. Pivoting on a dime is not an easy thing to do when you have 2,600+ polling places in North Carolina... If the pandora’s box opens up and you now have conflicts between state courts and federal courts... that’s where election administrators are concerned... can we keep pulling it off if there’s that much uncertainty?” - Karen Brinson Bell
Speakers:
Karen Brinson Bell - Executive Director, North Carolina State Board of Elections
Ben Ginsberg - Co-Chair, Election Official Legal Defense Network
Danielle R. Holley - Professor of Law and Dean of Howard University School of Law
Zach Montellaro - State Politics Reporter, POLITICO
Michael Thorning – Director, BPC’s Structural Democracy Project