Ballgame of Thrones

“Advocates of the theory argue that neither the state courts nor the state constitutions have the power to rein in the state legislatures. If a state legislature deems a Presidential election flawed, they have the right to unilaterally overturn the popular vote in the state and award its Electoral College votes to the candidate of their choice. If the Supreme Court were to fully embrace the most radical form of the independent-state-legislature theory, it would shift power over federal elections to partisan majorities in the state legislatures.” In other words, this Supreme Court case is a really big deal in an era of really big cases. That explains why the opposition is made of up some strange bedfellows. Jane Mayer in The New Yorker: The Conservative Stalwart Challenging the Far-Right Legal Theory That Could Subvert American Democracy. J. Michael Luttig “told me that he signed on as Katyal’s co-counsel because he regards Moore v. Harper as ‘without question the most significant case in the history of our nation for American democracy.’ Putting it more colloquially, he said, ‘Legally, it’s the whole ballgame.'”