Supreme Court Weighs Voting Rights Case Based on Fringe Theory That Could Upend Democracy

The Supreme Court is considering a North Carolina redistricting case that could have far-reaching implications for voting rights in the 2024 election and beyond. At stake in Moore v. Harper is whether North Carolina Republican lawmakers had the authority to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that redrew the state’s congressional map due to partisan gerrymandering. The plaintiffs want the Supreme Court to embrace the notion of “independent state legislature theory,” a radical conservative reading of the Constitution that claims state lawmakers have sweeping authority to override courts, governors and state constitutions. “The stakes are really, really high,” says law professor Franita Tolson, who teaches at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs on over 1,500 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream at Mondays to Fridays 8-9 a.m. ET.

Support independent media:
Subscribe to our Daily Email Digest:




  1. The people vote. The person with the most votes gets the job. Is that so hard to understand ?

  2. When the Democrats use covid-19 to illegally change election laws in 2020 and 2022 simply because their president enacted a state of emergency which took the election powers out of the legislature's hands and put it in the hands of crooked governors and secretaries of State along with crooked judges. And now that covid-19 is gone (although that's debatable when it comes to Democrats) someone needs to remind the Democrats that those election law changes were temporary and only because of covid-19. Your state elections are handled by legislatures because we elect those people to do that if you don't like the way your legislature is voting then vote your legislators out and vote in new ones that will pass the laws that you want at the present there are only eight states that have mail-in voting by law. If Democrats had their way all states would have it and I have no problem with that if that's what they vote to do. That's the key word here vote. We don't get to have new laws just because we throw the biggest hissy fit

  3. The independent state legislature theory is not a theory it's the law that's why we elect independent state legislators so that they make laws that includes election laws. Why are the Democrats acting like this is something that is so new. Just because they were able to change the election laws during covid-19 it pisses them off that those laws might have to go back to what they were before. It's simple follow the election laws on your state's books and if you don't like it take your issue to the state legislatures you know the people we elect to make laws. And every time the state legislature makes a law it doesn't need to end up in the courts because there's always some crooked judge this more than happy to throw a wrench in work done by legislatures. It's not a theory it's a fact and a law

  4. Why can't they just drawn district voting maps based on the census population? That is very common in most democratic countries Every ten years a census is done

  5. The conservative judges should just say they don't believe a silly theory that gives all power to the legislative branch in just this one instance, and confess they just want to end democracy so that republicans "win" everytime.

    They learned already that they can do crimes openly and nothing happens to them. And they can ignore everything they said in previous interviews about settled law.

    Tying themselves in knots to pretend to believe what they're saying is more embarrassing than just going maskoff fascist.

  6. Chimerica is counting on the deep state to win your country, they won elections and now own you. Remember that!

  7. I dont think this will pass and if it does then America needs a whole new government.

  8. I wished they show the history of this theory. Historically it was a practiced 200 + years ago until Andrew Jackson kicked its ass out because he saw it as undemocratic and a hold over from the articles of confederation. An remind people of why such a thing now is even worse.

  9. This is the absolute least of concerns and falls within the same major media outlets narratives of depicted concerns. The real concern is the Havana Cuba Weapons used upon unsuspecting American Civilians. This Weapon is 100% AFFIRMED as altering self determination, and controlling self expression. It had been used by the United States of America's Law Enforcement, Military, Intelligence and Religious Communities. How can a person"vote" or select an elected official, when they cannot determine with 100% certainty that they want chocolate ice cream over vanilla? The issue? No one is telling the American People the Truth about this, for control, oppression and power. If they did the People could at least go through personal checks and balances to insure their decisions are reflective of their best morally bound concerns "self determined". These Weapons control when a person's needs to use the restroom, how their hearts function in their chest, breathing patterns, gate while walking, hand motions the list is endless….yet People think democracy exists in the United States of America when "they" circle a dot on a piece of paper or on an electric ballot? Currently this Nation is completely under full blown attakc and war had been declared…those who have DECLARED this are found within the US Military, Law Enforcement, Intelligence Community Personnel, and Religion…
    The very fundimental attributes of one of the most Ancient decrees of Free Will is at stake…
    And Republicans are behind it, and concealing it as much if not more than Democrats.

  10. This is merely garbage, when a person can just switch parties at will This is Satin Anglo-Saxon BS 🇺🇲it should be 5 years tenure before anyone can switch parties, and put some real godly🔥🔥🤲 American in the supream court instead of the want to be godly 😈🇺🇲🤲🔥🔥🔥👱‍♀️🧑🏾‍💼👩🏽‍🌾people voted in by pale face people, satins 👉😈🇺🇲children ✝️🤣

  11. The supreme.court is deciding if they are dictator or american… America doesn't have to tolerate a dictatorship from any 9 people saying a country that doesn't reflect the supreme court in any way can ignore the votes of america and install a legal dictator. The founders fought civil war vs the supreme courts ideas if they say votes can be ignored.. and a few can choose it's forever locked into the people in power today.. that is more anti american then a German Nazi encampment.. you get to vote because your families fought and died to have a vote each.. Africa s and Americans fought harder then Europeans here then they tried to kill off many of the american race and africans here.. supreme court can't be ignorant and remain relevant when trying to sabotage the rule of law in america.. thinking votes don't count is enemy of war activity.. votes count according to the law which is natural to the whole planet where freedom exists.. and above the supreme court options.. they want neo Nazi Sharia law in usa.. that is a fact..

  12. This is PURE CRAP! The US Constitution says election laws 'Shall be determined by the State legislature', NOT the appointed Judges of said states who are unelected judges doing the bidding of their Governor! THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVE are rightfully in charge of election law, not unelected LAWYERS. This case will return fairness to the electoral process and return America to THE PEOPLE. The SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE IN FAVOR OF THE PEOPLE. THE GOBALIST BANKERS ARE GOING DOWN WITH THIS VICTORY!

  13. Great animated explanation and implications.

    Also…when people say "our democracy," it is (or at least should be) understood that they mean "our republic." A republic is feudalism with elections, where the elected "lords" go by the name "legislator/representative/senator, president/governor/mayor," etc and the only "democracy" that exists is exercised by those lords. The masses merely get elections to decide who SOME of those lords are. So when they say "protect/defend our democracy," what they REALLY mean is "protect/defend the elective aspect of our authoritarian system." They don't really mean "democracy."

  14. Laws are made by house and state senators. What part you don't understand. Why would the supreme court even look at this.

  15. doesn't matter, elections aren't legitimate anyway. "results" are predetermined by the real people in power. this is all a smoke screen. the real people in power control the legislatures, governors, courts, media outlets, educational system, financial system… all of it. when public confidence is eroded to the point where everyone sees it, then the collapse is here and another tyrannical faction will take over and the process will begin again. that's why media (propaganda) control is so important.

  16. So… I heard your video. I still confused? Is it going to pass, not pass, look like it will pass?

  17. So, I haven't heard the oral argument, but others are saying that SCROTA doesn't appear to be buying this. That is not, of course, definitive–consider Dennis and Haymond, though at least they split Kavanaugh from Gorsuch.

  18. As Professor Tolson said, here is the entire text of the place in the Constitution at issue in this case:

    "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators."

    This seems very straightforward. It is not crazy to interpret this to mean that (absent federal legislation) a State prescribes the "time, place and manner" of electing federal office holders through their elected legislature. That is what this says. A legislature is, by definition, a creature of the constitution that establishes its existence. It cannot exceed the bounds of the constitution that authorizes it to act. In this case, the legislative body exceeded its authority (acted ultra vires) in adopting illegally gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of its governing document (the state constitution). First question presented: does drawing the boundaries of congressional districts mean the same thing as setting rules on the "time place and manner" of voting? Historically states have been doing this when it seems questionable to begin with. Gerrymandering goes to the heart of the exercise of the right to vote – and violates that right. It is not a mere regulation of the time that a person votes, the place where you vote, or the manner by which you cast your ballot. It tells who you can vote for and who you cannot vote for. It herds you into a pen where you have no ability to vote for someone who represents you.

    But even if States will continue to run roughshod over the rights of the people to representative government, Congress can stop this by regulating how districts are to be drawn. They can start by doing away with single-member, winner-take-all districts in favor of proportional voting and multi-member districts that allow voters an opportunity to elect representatives that are – well, more representative of them.

    In other words, there is a need for Congress to fix this in an honest and fair way. The cynics will say they will not because it is a question of maintaining the horrible left-right divide that allows the left and right to hold onto power in this two-partty system we have. But we are starting to see cracks developing in this system, as with the brave act of Senator Sinema to veer neither right nor left, but to move forward.

  19. It is disappointing to see even a law professor looking at what is a LEGAL case as really a POLITICAL one, where you have "conservative" justices versus "liberal" justices taking political positions instead of doing their jobs: following the text of the law (in this case the Eection Clause(es) of the Constitution, interpreting its meaning and applying it to the facts of the case or controversy between two parties who are appearing before the Court. It is fashionable these days to be cynical in general, and towards the SCOTUS in particular to say they are not judges doing their jobs but are in reality a group of political hacks playing games they want to "win" instead of honestly ruling on the points of law presented before them. So, in this case, they are not suppose to be deciding, like some "Super Legislature" what they think the law SHOULD be – and that State courts and governors "should" do this but not that. Their role is to interpret what the constitution says as applied to the facts of this case, which is really fairly straight forward. There is no need for all this hysteria.

  20. Hummm…. STATES RIGHTS? Isn't that issue a trigger point for our last CIVIL WAR? We can't go there again!

  21. The Supreme Court Judges have been compromised and need to be stopped. They are not kings and Queens. 5 bought and paid for people have No Business taking any the Constitutional Rights of Hundreds of Millions of Americans. They need to be regulated, 4 more Judges appointed to the bench, and term limits of no more than 15 years put in place. No one in the United States holds a job for life without being corrupted and paid off. There also needs to be a way of removing them from the bench if necessary. Like being involved in a Coup to overturn America's Democracy.

  22. I love this theory. Looks like it makes it more fair. Unlike the sketchy things libs have been doing.

  23. The best thing these judges can do is go back to their room and realise that 66% of Americans already hate them, and then think accordingly.

  24. The guy who stacked the Supreme Court was elected on a minority, and then lost the last 3 elections. His damage could last a lifetime, but none of this was democratic!

  25. Reforms are coming in the Brunson case at the Supreme Court. Docket number 22-380 scheduled for conference in January.

  26. Hey Goodman, there has been an invention. Might have heard of it. It's called a comb. Try using one for once. That homeless bag lady look is not meant to be a trend.

  27. Freedom to vote the way anyone wants is the highest pick in Democracy and government should not having any say in that.

Comments are closed.