Read on Twitter
I think this is the 100% correct legal argument, but candidly I don't think it would work with the current SCOTUS
The import of McPherson v Blacker (and subsequent decisions that haven't repudiated it) is that a state legislature can't dilute their elector-selection powers
1/ https://twitter.com/realconnorlynch/status/1324413178566963200
The import of McPherson v Blacker (and subsequent decisions that haven't repudiated it) is that a state legislature can't dilute their elector-selection powers
1/ https://twitter.com/realconnorlynch/status/1324413178566963200
If McPherson v Blacker is treated as the controlling precedent â despite all the constitutional developments since then (e.g. the Fourteenth Amendment) â the R argument would be that state constitutions and legislative processes are irrelevant to the federal grant of power
2/
2/
But this really does get down to foundational questions about natural rights, derived powers, etc
I don't see any non-insane argument that citizens can't proscribe the powers of their state governments via their state constitutions
3/
I don't see any non-insane argument that citizens can't proscribe the powers of their state governments via their state constitutions
3/
And those state constitutions lay out the legislative processes that would require changing state statutes first before just designating new electors
And those changes would â and should â be subject to gubernatorial veto
4/
And those changes would â and should â be subject to gubernatorial veto
4/
That's before getting into the federal statutes governing the timeline for designation of electors
I assume, without deciding, that SCOTUS would hold those statutes could be discarded if enforcing them would proscribe state legislators' elector-selection powers
5/
I assume, without deciding, that SCOTUS would hold those statutes could be discarded if enforcing them would proscribe state legislators' elector-selection powers
5/
TL;DR: we've got some exceptionally bad court precedent from 120+ years ago that hasn't been disclaimed, because the issues addressed by it are so rare
That precedent is at the core of Kavanaugh's nuttery a couple weeks ago
It's wrong, but a still-open question
6/6
That precedent is at the core of Kavanaugh's nuttery a couple weeks ago
It's wrong, but a still-open question
6/6
Likely SCOTUS holding would be Congressional statute can't dilute state legislatures' selection power https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1324423171106365440
I understand the argument, I'm just saying I doubt it would fly https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1324425440061259776
