[EL] Well, now we know there are at least four Justices (w/Barrett not yet opining)

[Marty Lederman]

for the notion that legislatures can't be bound by their own state
constitutions:

"[T]here is a strong likelihood that the [PA] State Supreme Court decision
violates the Federal Constitution. The provisions of the Federal
Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the
authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if
a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by
claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the
authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of
a fair election. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2."

The dripping contempt for courts' very common, ordinary constitutional
adjudication, is palpable:  "simply by claiming"; "make whatever rules it
thought appropriate."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201028/5b413a7d/attachment.html>