Supreme Court Rejects Sweeping Version of Independent State Legislature Theory in 6-3 Ruling, Upholding Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances in the Electoral Process.

The Supreme Court has rejected a sweeping version of the independent state legislature theory (ISLT) in a 6-3 ruling on Tuesday. The theory reads two clauses of the Constitution extremely literally to find that only state legislatures have the power to administer federal elections, to the exclusion of state court authority, governors’ vetoes, rule-making by the secretary of state, voter-passed election initiatives, restraints from the state constitution and independent redistricting commissions.

The ruling was met with disappointment from conservative lawyer John Eastman, who had embraced the theory as part of his argument that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to refuse to certify the 2020 presidential election results.

The ISLT would have vested state legislatures with the enormous power to draw maps, pass election laws and cook up voter restrictions unchecked. This would have been a major shift in the way elections are administered in the United States, and the Supreme Court’s rejection of the theory is a victory for those who believe in the importance of checks and balances in the electoral process.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a reminder of the importance of the separation of powers, and the need for all branches of government to work together to ensure fair and secure elections. The Court’s decision also serves as a warning to those who seek to use the Constitution to advance their own political agendas.