Top headlines

Lead story

If you can say “independent state legislature theory,” and know what it is, then you’re part of a pretty large group of people who have been watching the U.S. Supreme Court website, and the very helpful Scotusblog.com, like hawks recently. The court has steadily been issuing opinions in cases over the past few weeks and has evidently saved some of the biggest decisions for last.

Yesterday, one of those big opinions dropped. More precisely, it was a straightforward opinion in a big case that University of Richmond legal scholar Henry L. Chambers Jr. said “merely reiterates what most people always thought the law was: Legislatures cannot legislate inconsistently with the law that governs their actions and their state. This conclusion seems obvious, like saying the sky is blue or water is wet.”

But what if the decision had been different? Moore v. Harper was a case that could have changed U.S. elections and politics in fundamental ways. In my interview with Chambers, he explains that from the shape of legislative districts to who elects the president, Moore v. Harper was a case that could have unleashed “bedlam” across the country.

[Sign up for our weekly Global Economy & Business newsletter, a curated summary of the week’s briefings from academic experts.]

Naomi Schalit

Democracy Editor

North Carolina’s election districts have been under debate and review for years. AP Photo/Gerry Broome

Supreme Court says state lawmakers can’t just ignore state law when drawing voting districts or choosing presidential electors

Henry L. Chambers Jr., University of Richmond

It’s official: State courts can review lawmakers’ election-district boundary decisions to ensure they comply with state law.

Environment + Energy

Politics + Society

Ethics + Religion

Arts + Culture

International

Trending on site

Today's graphic 📈