IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v708y2023i1p208-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In Electoral Disputes, State Justices Are Less Reliable GOP Allies than the U.S. Supreme Court—That’s the “Problem†the Independent State Legislature Claim Hopes to Solve

Author

Listed:
  • Rebecca L. Brown
  • Lee Epstein
  • Michael J. Nelson

Abstract

Scholars have identified serious drawbacks to the independent state legislature (ISL) claim, which precludes state-court review of election laws, thus preventing state guarantees like “free and fair elections†from being enforced. Considering its flaws, we ask why ISL would be pursued so fervently and why the Supreme Court, in Moore v. Harper , adopted a version of it. Examining data that compare election-law outcomes in federal and state supreme courts, we found that state supreme court justices, even if Republican, are not reliable supporters of the GOP electoral agenda. The Roberts court, by contrast, has voted in the GOP-supported direction in most election-law cases it has decided. This, we argue, is why ISL is promoted so vigorously: it takes electoral disputes—such as who can vote, what the rules for counting are, and such—out of the hands of state courts and places them squarely into the hands of the Supreme Court, a reliable partisan ally.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebecca L. Brown & Lee Epstein & Michael J. Nelson, 2023. "In Electoral Disputes, State Justices Are Less Reliable GOP Allies than the U.S. Supreme Court—That’s the “Problem†the Independent State Legislature Claim Hopes to Solve," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 208-226, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:708:y:2023:i:1:p:208-226
    DOI: 10.1177/00027162241231137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00027162241231137
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00027162241231137?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:708:y:2023:i:1:p:208-226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.