today, said that the argument is effectively a one-two punch for 2024. first, we get the supreme court to adopt this independent state legislature doctrine. the second thing that you do is ensure that the holes in the electoral counteract, that s the statute that john eastman and donald trump were effectively trying to exploit, the second step is ensuring that those holes don t get plugged. amy klobuchar, others on the hill, are trying to do exactly that before the end of this congress. whether they succeed, still remains to be seen. really just i am so happy that i had you three here with me to go through all of the ramifications, what s at stake, what it all means, to explain what can feel like an arcane legal theory and make it not only interesting and understandable but also compelling to tell us why we need to matter. so thank you very much. and julia ainsley, who started us off, i appreciate it. everybody. still ahead, what senate democrats can learn from their victory in geo
that is insane on its own term. the fact that there is no basis in constitutional texts, or in history, in doctrine, anywhere in the founding papers for the independent state legislature doctrine, as part of just the whackiness of this case. what is interesting, lisa, is that of those who signed on for the amicus briefs, only 16 of the briefs were in support of north carolina out of 70. usually it is a little more balanced, can i say? or you tell me. usually, it is a little bit more balanced. but i think the overall number speaks to the consequences here. and to dalia s point, while none of the justices were quite minimizing the consequences of this case, they were not exactly transparent about it either, except for justice kagan, who at one point asked the lawyer for the north carolina legislature to take a step back and said, this is the theory with big consequences, and sort of outlined some of what julia said could be at stake. anything from partisan
court decision and adopt an old state theory. it is called the independent state legislature doctrine. i it goes like this. under the election laws of the constitution, the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. proponents of this partisan state legislature theory should be able to set rules in federal elections with no check, no check from state constitutions, no check from state courts, no check from state commissions. no balances. and it isn t just the maps. this could be about all rules in federal elections. but it is some of the top republican lawyers and judges in the country who are ringing alarm bells. ben ginsburg. you saw him on this deshow a lo.
to regulate federal elections. david, how does it look like justices will side in this case? sandra, arguments ended after three hours, they were scheduled for an hour and a half. you can never predict what the justice will do, we need to watch chief justice john roberts, justice amy coney barrett and kavanaugh. they could be the swing votes in this case aside from the liberal and conservative justices. this is the biggest, one of the biggest cases dealing with voting rights before the supreme court ever and that is not an exaggeration. the important question before the supreme court today ultimately will the control over federal election rules without traditional oversight from state courts be in effect. those in favor of change cite what is the independent state legislature doctrine. argue the u.s. constitution actually gives state lawmakers
legislature and its redrawn congressional map that heavily favors the gop. the state supreme court blocked the map and issued a court drawn one that was used in this year s midterm elections. now, north carolina republican leaders argue that quote carefully drawn lines place the regulation of federal elections in the hands of state legislators, congress and no one else. former u.s. attorney general eric holder is warning this case could decide whether american democracy prevails. it is a fringe theory. this is something that if the court i think does the right thing, you should have a 9-0 opinion by the court that rejects this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine. this is a very very dangerous theory that would put our system of checks and balances at risk. i would hope that the court would drive a stake through this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine, and get it off the books and out of our consideration once and for all.