I've read #MooreVHarper, and am pleased the "Independent State Legislature" doctrine was rejected.
But other than dry legal arguments, I've not seen discussion from proponents as to *why* they think it is good public policy to give politicians the power to negate elections they disagree with.
If we claim to live in a Constitutional Republic, how can anyone with a straight face argue that the VP *should have* the power to negate single-handedly the results of a presidential election, or that a state legislature *should have* the power to set aside elections?
If our Constitution truly allowed elections to be negated that easily, our system would be little better than China or the former Soviet Union. The fact that two of our justices value democracy so little that they would allow that is concerning.
I think you're missing the part of the argument where it's not a question of what *should be* as much as what *is*.
**To be clear, I think their argument is wrong, but...**
When I hear the Independent State Legislature theorists making their case, they're not generally passing value judgment on what should be. They're simply saying, well, this is what the Constitution provides for, and we can change that through amendment, but for now, this is what it is.
@volkris I understand that for purposes of the law, the issue is what it *is*, not what it *should be*.
My point is a broader one - that people fighting for that absurd "independent state legislature" doctrine are not only legally wrong, but reprehensible in that they are advocating for (not merely "interpreting", but urging an interpretation) for a society where the voters' will can be overturned by our leaders.
When someone is pointing out that a rule would lead to a consequence that doesn't seem like a good one, it's at least worth considering updating the rule to preclude that outcome.
Here and in other places.
Like I said, I do hear people arguing for that position based on pure interpretation, even without advocacy, even while being critical of it.
On a slightly different topic, I find it funny how people are complaining about giving more control to the democratic branch, celebrating that the judicial branch is to override the representatives of the people.
The story isn't so black and white.
@volkris It is a double-edged sword. In this case, SCOTUS slapped down a doctrine of unlimited legislature power to determine elections, unfettered by state constitutional norms, But in so doing, SCOTUS has also inserted itself into the issue, and expanded their power for the next dispute which arises where the outcome may not be so just.
To be clear, I was referring to the state court role in overriding the democratically elected legislature. SCOTUS was recognizing that role.
But yep, this takes away the power of the people to elect legislators to manage these things.
