115
Supreme Court rejects theory that would have meant radical changes to election rules
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
115 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
19 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s difficult to overstate how disastrous a ruling in this case going the other way could have been, on top of the corrupting influence of large amounts of money already involved in politics and how gerrymandered districts already are.
I agree. The Republicans control enough state legislatures that saying "state legislatures can just declare who the winner is despite the vote tally" would mean a permanent Republican House and Senate majority (with the Senate majority filibuster proof) and a permanent Republican presidency.
Thankfully, any such ambitions to subvert democracy in this manner have been paused for now.
Note, paused and not stopped. I'm sure the Republicans will try to find another way to present this to get the Supreme Court to approve of it. This is a win in a battle, but the war is far from over.