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

Wed Oct 28 15:06:55 PDT 2020

Does Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015) engage this question? In a bar, asking for the rest of the members of the bar here with me in the bar [we can't get to HeinOnline from here].

Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
President's Associates Presidential Professor of Architecture & Journalism
Executive Faculty Fellow of the University of Oklahoma
Senior Fellow of Headington College <http://ouheadingtoncollege.org/>
General Editor, Social Science Quarterly

"I would like to build a University of which the football team could be proud." ~George Lynn Cross
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 5:01 PM
To: Samuel S. Wang <sswang at princeton.edu>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Well, now we know there are at least four Justices (w/Barrett not yet opining)

How does a federal court determine what is the state legislature absent the State Constitution, which in turn is interpreted definitively by its State Supreme Court?

e.g., Nebraska is generally deemed to be "unicameral." But what if some gathering in Omaha declares they're in the actual state capitol and they're the long lost Nebraska State Assembly. Who is to tell them otherwise? The Supreme Court based on... what sort of factfinding?

The concept of a state legislature outside the context of a state Constitution interpreted by a state's highest Court is incoherent.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:56 PM Samuel S. Wang <sswang at princeton.edu<mailto:sswang at princeton.edu>> wrote:
I was once told by my betters that rights were not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, but that stronger protections could be conferred by the states. Also, that state courts are arbiters of those additional rights. But ymmv.

Sam Wang

>>>
Sent by handheld. Excuse brevity please!

On Oct 28, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>> wrote:

To me that reads as supporting the notion that state courts are bound by state constitutions and aren’t free-ranging “justice” commissions with limitless power to rewrite legislation, but I guess ymmv.

Ilya Shapiro

Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies

Publisher, Cato Supreme Court Review

Cato Institute

1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW

Washington, DC  20001

cel. (202) 577-1134

Skype: ishapiro99

Bio/clips: https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cato.org_people_ilya-2Dshapiro&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=itJIms9G3wxvyGkmVqA7xg&m=jlr-jOEtnQ85v6QPrww7isIXY6jTteyjCRSDZCZRbP8&s=UZKM9xIr7mALEdVxvaRxi-o6pvsrFAMHtwLV51eJp-U&e=>

Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_ishapiro&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=itJIms9G3wxvyGkmVqA7xg&m=jlr-jOEtnQ85v6QPrww7isIXY6jTteyjCRSDZCZRbP8&s=P1_7CD1FJpKSgbRpw6hbjjLpBNJ7I6-QJBI0v_-Zcl8&e=>

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ssrn.com_author-3D1382023&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=itJIms9G3wxvyGkmVqA7xg&m=jlr-jOEtnQ85v6QPrww7isIXY6jTteyjCRSDZCZRbP8&s=C6KNH6N8FD99eUqXZytiG0MtwdhZgjTE4ZTp0Cg-n54&e=>

Buy my new book: Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Supreme-2DDisorder-2DJudicial-2DNominations-2DPolitics_dp_1684510562_&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=itJIms9G3wxvyGkmVqA7xg&m=jlr-jOEtnQ85v6QPrww7isIXY6jTteyjCRSDZCZRbP8&s=hH1RC2loAs0xrw0uZpzfoSvbJzcRKnu7fDDmE9tLCTY&e=>

Cato Supreme Court Review:  http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cato.org_supreme-2Dcourt-2Dreview&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=itJIms9G3wxvyGkmVqA7xg&m=jlr-jOEtnQ85v6QPrww7isIXY6jTteyjCRSDZCZRbP8&s=tgGA3IVn9vjuXFeDndeJROqibBDFE-kAxn2gZPBxAAc&e=>

Watch our 19th Annual Constitution Day Conference, Sept. 17, 2020:

https://www.cato.org/events/19th-annual-constitution-day<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cato.org_events_19th-2Dannual-2Dconstitution-2Dday&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=itJIms9G3wxvyGkmVqA7xg&m=jlr-jOEtnQ85v6QPrww7isIXY6jTteyjCRSDZCZRbP8&s=x_wwIm_ukJ9DWLj0R6LaAGc1t6wa_LoMCYe1hOrtsWY&e=>

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 5:29 PM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: [EL] Well, now we know there are at least four Justices (w/Barrett not yet opining)

*CAUTION: External Email*

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."

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=itJIms9G3wxvyGkmVqA7xg&m=jlr-jOEtnQ85v6QPrww7isIXY6jTteyjCRSDZCZRbP8&s=kFk4nbgTRarrp_qfRX3uCMhe1m90ogGI0aT6M7v7U4A&e=>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=itJIms9G3wxvyGkmVqA7xg&m=jlr-jOEtnQ85v6QPrww7isIXY6jTteyjCRSDZCZRbP8&s=kFk4nbgTRarrp_qfRX3uCMhe1m90ogGI0aT6M7v7U4A&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201028/516807bc/attachment.html>