[EL] Unlawful legislature can't propose constitutional amendments?

[Marty Lederman]

What did Jed cite?

On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 5:10 PM Christopher S. Elmendorf <
cselmendorf at ucdavis.edu> wrote:

> Here’s a twitter thread about the decision from Jed Purdy, who contributed
> to a scholars’ brief arguing that an illegitimately constituted legislature
> could not call the constitutional question,
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/JedediahSPurdy/status/1099410895191592965
>
>
>
> best,
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From: *Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>
> *Date: *Friday, February 22, 2019 at 8:08 PM
> *To: *rick hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Cc: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Unlawful legislature can't propose constitutional
> amendments?
>
>
>
> What's most striking about the decision is that the state court judge
> doesn't cite *any *authority under NC law for the key proposition that an
> unlawfully constituted legislature (as NC's was) does not "represent the
> people" and therefore cannot pass legislation to put proposed
> constitutional amendments on the ballot.  Did the plaintiffs cite anything
> in their briefs to support such a novel idea?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 5:25 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> Breaking: North Carolina State Court Rules State Voter ID Constitutional
> Amendment is Void Because Enacted by a Racially Gerrymandered Legislature;
> Not Clear if Ruling Will Stand <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103731>
>
> Posted on February 22, 2019 2:22 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103731> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Release
> <https://www.southernenvironment.org/news-and-press/press-releases/court-voids-two-constitutional-amendments>
> :
>
>
> *The Wake County Superior Court today ruled
> <https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/words_docs/doc03389420190222171503.pdf> that
> the illegally gerrymandered North Carolina General Assembly did not have
> legal authority to place constitutional amendments on the ballot because it
> did not act with the full will of the people of North Carolina.  The court
> voided two constitutional amendment proposals – related to imposing a photo
> voter ID requirement and lowering the state income tax cap – that were
> hurriedly enacted in the final 2018 special session of the
> illegally-constituted legislature before it left office.    Judge Bryan
> Collins of the Wake County Superior ruled that “[a]n illegally constituted
> General Assembly does not represent the people of North Carolina and is
> therefore not empowered to pass legislation that would amend the state’s
> Constitution.” As a result, the two amendments challenged by the plaintiffs
> are void, and the constitution will revert to its earlier form.*
>
> It is not at all clear that this ruling will stand. Aside from the fact
> that these amendments went before voters for a popular vote (which was not
> called into question), this ruling would seem to call into question all the
> actions of the General Assembly based upon the improper drawing of
> districts. I have not seen such a holding before.
>
>

-- 
Marty Lederman
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-662-9937
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190224/642b1077/attachment.html>