The Supreme Court rejected the bizarre argument in the case of Moore v. Harper that would give state legislatures the sole power to draw congressional district maps and set election law. That sounds like something Kari Lake would propose.
Via Yahoo News:
The independent state legislature theory that Republicans in the North Carolina legislature wanted the court to adopt claims that the U.S. Constitution vests power to set the "time, place, and manner" of federal elections to state legislatures alone. This would mean that state courts would have no ability to rule on gerrymandered maps or other election laws that may run afoul of their respective state constitution. State legislatures, themselves often gerrymandered to give one party majority control, would then have free reign to draw congressional maps and set election laws without judicial checks and balances.
Eugene Robinson (above) put it succinctly:
EUGENE ROBINSON: I think this is very good news. And I'm glad the Court did take this case and clarified that this crazy omnipotent state legislature theory is wrong, because where does that end? That ends with the Balkanized nation. We have a federal system. There is a lot of power vested in state legislatures, but they're not all-powerful, and I think it is good that even this Court, even this very conservative Court, that some might have thought would be friendly to this sort of idea, says, "No, that's crazy. That's not the way -- that's not the way in the United States works.
Worth noting that Ginni Thomas was involved in stoking the insurrection yet Clarence still dissented, rather than recusing himself, of course.
You would think it would have been unanimously rejected, but it was not. The court rejected the radical theory in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, affirming that state courts still have to play a role in judging district maps drawn by state legislatures, according to the outlet.
This is excellent news unless you're a fascist. And if you're a fascist, you can fuck off.
