Missouri secretary of state throws support behind controversial election theory

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Missouri Independent

ELECTIONS * GOVERNMENT + POLITICS

Missouri secretary of state throws support behind controversial election theory

Jay Ashcroft filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court advocating the so-called ‘independent state legislature doctrine’

BY: JASON HANCOCK - SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 8:00 AM

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft has lined up behind a U.S. Supreme Court case legal experts believe could radically reshape how federal elections are conducted by handing more power to state legislatures and blocking state courts from intervening. ... Ashcroft announced last week that his office had filed an amicus brief in support of Republicans in North Carolina who are asking the nation’s highest court to restore a Congressional map that was rejected as a partisan gerrymander by that state’s Supreme Court.

The North Carolina Republicans argue the state court had no authority to throw out the map under the so-called independent state legislature doctrine. ... “Secretary Ashcroft is the first elected official to file an amicus brief in the US Supreme Court in support of state legislatures in historic elections case,” the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office tweeted last week.

The independent state legislature doctrine would give state lawmakers the power to set election rules and draw congressional maps without any review by state courts. ...Some legal experts contend the doctrine could also be interpreted as allowing a legislature to refuse to certify the results of a pres­id­en­tial elec­tion and instead select its own slate of elect­ors. ... A version of the theory was pushed in 2020 by allies of then-President Donald Trump in their effort to toss out legitimate election results in swing states won by Joe Biden and have electors appointed by Trump-friendly legislators.

{snip}

Read more: https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/06/missouri-secretary-of-state-throws-support-behind-controversial-election-theory/

---

I am not familiar with the Missouri Independent, but the writers seem legit.

Hat tip, Joe.My.God.

Missouri Secretary Of State Backs Lawsuit That Would Ban State Courts From Reviewing Congressional Maps
September 6, 2022

https://www.joemygod.com/2022/09/missouri-secretary-of-state-backs-lawsuit-that-would-ban-state-courts-from-reviewing-congressional-maps/

[lark]

1. Another part of the plot by the RW Christofascists, including those at SCOTUS, to destroy democracy.

They want a christian oligarchy aka fascism and they will get it one way or the other. It's been the goal since the 20's, at a minimum.

[GenXer47]

6. yeah, they almost got it

Unfortunately I agree, when you look at how close they are to controlling all 3 branches of the federal government, it's pretty much a done deal. All it will take to install the next president is enough chaos on voting day, certification day, or both, to throw the election to the House.
Once that happens, kiss democracy goodbye.
But even though I know we're gonna lose, I'll never stop fighting. We'll be the rebellion - we'll agitate, irritate, disrupt, sabotage, etc. for the rest of our lives. Some of us will go to jail, some might even "disappear". I used to think taking revenge was petty, but for democracy, for my kids' freedom, nah. I'll take what I can get!

[lark]

7. Welcome to DU.

I plan on being part of the Resistance as well. I would have moved to NZ, but unfortunately our friends there moved to Canada and they can't get us into Canada. I live in FL and am surrounded by trumpies, so if there is a civil war, we will have to ask our friend in CA if we can put a trailer on her land. If there is no actual war, I will stay and fight the battle with words. I am thinking about becoming a volunteer for the FL Democratic party again, that's one way I can help now.

[PSPS]

2. LOL. "controversial"

[karynnj]

3. He is the son of Bush administration, John Ashcroft

I was curious so I looked at Jay's biography.

[DFW]

20. The name did seem familiar

Hereditary assholism.

[Initech]

4. The controversy is only coming from one side, and it's the fucking crazy one.

[TeamProg]

5. Time to add FOUR MORE SCOTUS Justices! I used to be against this idea, but not now! n/t

[fightforfreedom]

8. Do they actually believe the American people would be OK with this?

Political suicide.

[ColinC]

11. Considering the SCOTUS approval is at an all time low

And the extent to which that doesn't phase the SCOTUS to continue to make more anti democratic and unpopular decisions, it may be necessary for political survival. Also right after Dobbs, there was about a 40% favor ability to the idea. I wouldn't be surprised that at this point, that number has increased quite a bit.

[TeamProg]

13. A Dem Senate majority may be able to IMPEACH the five liars: Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch &

Alito.

This might more public acceptance.

[Polybius]

16. Barrett didn't lie

She refused to say Roe was precedent. The others did.

[ColinC]

18. It would be easier to just add seats

You can do that with a bare majority. Impeachment requires 2/3rds in the Senate -which we will not likely get.

[intheflow]

17. Bullshit.

The best reason to expand is that at the time the Court was set at nine justices, there were nine appellate courts. Each justice got oversight of one of the nine courts. There are now 13 appellate courts. It only makes sense to expand the court to 13. And that's an argument outside any partisanship - though of course the Repukes will make it partisan as fuck. But then, they do that with absolutely everything so fuck them and their supporters' tears.

[ColinC]

19. Yup

[Lonestarblue]

10. I stopped being against it a long time ago. It's the only way to save our democracy.

The federal courts and the Supreme Court all need an overhaul. The circuit courts have actually needed an overhaul for years because of workload issues. I think these courts were last adjusted when the US had a population of around 220 million. Our population is now over 330 million and population shifts have changed the workloads for several courts, making cases take years for resolution, sometimes more than five years, which is not justice.

We most likely need more justices on some circuit courts and perhaps fewer or no changes on others, such as those that cover rural states that have lost population. We might even need to add a couple of new circuit courts to balance the populations covered.

As for the Supreme Court, they have been doing far too much ruling through docket cases, partially because they take so few cases for full review. I believe the court should be expanded to 13 justices—one for each of our 13 federal circuit courts. Even if the number of circuit courts is expanded, one justice could most likely handle two of the courts with less populous states rather than expanding the SC to 15.

Obviously, we need the House and Senate to do this, and if we keep the majority it needs to happen next year to give time for a bunch of new appointments. I remember reading some time ago that an analysis of the workloads in some of the busiest circuit courts had already been made (not the one Biden ordered), with requests for additional justices. I’m sure each of those courts has an idea for how many justices they need.

The will to do this by Congress is a big question mark.

[Polybius]

15. No not now

In January, after we pick up 2-3 Senate seats and they take office. Now risks the election.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. Societies need rules and organization, not chaos

[vlyons]

12. oh lord, this is goddamed scary

You know a shit load of other red states are going to jump on this band wagon and file amicus briefs

[geretogo]

14. Self government is coming to an end in America .

[Ford_Prefect]

21. If you cannot win under the original legitimate rules make up your own and claim they apply.

That's what cheaters do. It's the only way they CAN win.


...And talk about Cancel Culture in action, whew!