In the following case Moore v. HarperThe U.S. Supreme Court decided whether the term “constitutional law” in the election clause of the U.S. Constitution granted congressional autonomy over election laws that could not be removed based on the concept of the “constitutional theory of independent government”.
In this case, the Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether the federal sovereignty concept applies to the Constitution’s elections clause. The case asks the court to decide whether the judicial branch of the state should invalidate laws governing the “Method of conducting Elections for Representatives and Representatives … established … by the Legislature there” will be replaced by the laws of the state court itself. The Constitution’s election clause states, “The times, places and manner of holding Elections for Candidates and Representatives shall be determined by the Legislature of each State.”
Most notably, the Framers proposed a different election clause, the “Pinckney Plan,” which stated, “Each State shall provide for the time and manner of holding public elections…” without using the word “law.” Pinckney’s article was not removed from the voting list.
Leftist feminist groups have responded by launching a counter-indoctrination campaign. The President of the Women’s Suffrage Association, Virginia Kase Solomón, says, “The Independent Government Policy is a dangerous and extreme idea that will prevent voters from having to deal with bad voting laws.” But what these women’s groups fail to mention is that the US Supreme Court relied on the concept of a separate state legislature to give women the vote a century ago.
The 19th Amendment to the US Constitution states, “The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be abrogated or abridged by the United States, or by any Government of the citizen.” On June 4, 1919, the United States Congress passed the proposed amendment, but in order for the amendment to become part of the Constitution, Article V required ratification by “three-fourths of the several states.” On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the 36th state (of a total of 48 states) to ratify the 19th Amendment, meeting the three-quarters requirement.
But a few months later, in Lesser v. Garnett, Oscar Leser filed a lawsuit to prevent women from registering to vote by challenging the validity of the amendment’s ratification. He argued that the state constitutions of Tennessee and West Virginia did not give their state legislatures the power to ratify. Without those states, there is no support for the proposed 19th amendment to meet the three-quarters requirement. To decide this question, the United States Supreme Court used the concept of independent government. Under Article V, it must be “ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states.” Because the framers used the word “legislatively,” the court said that “the legislatures of Tennessee and West Virginia have the power to adopt resolutions of ratification.”
The minimum guarantees were met, with the court declaring that the 19th Amendment “has become valid for all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution of the United States.” In so holding, the court explained that the “act of the legislature … to enact a proposed amendment to the Constitution … is a federal act derived from the Constitution ; and on the borders sought to be placed by the people of a Country.” According to University of Florida Law Professor Michael T. Morley, a federal law that purports to block the legislature’s ability to enact certain amendments to the Constitution is unenforceable. the Constitution.
Women Suffrage, National Council of Jewish Women, and Progressive Republican Women, which filed amicus briefs opposing the concept of a separate state legislature, are actively seeking to release their own leftist agenda and/or without the consent of the management. Taking the text study will take away their tools to avoid and eliminate the government’s illegal activities in the elections. These measures include the attorney general’s refusal to defend redistricting maps or state election laws passed by legislatures in court, asking judges to deny the ability to defend their maps, search for court zoning maps, and buy sets for the judge to strike. it undermines voting rights laws, and uses the courts to take advantage of redistricting.
Instead of going through the legislative process of creating and changing election laws, lobbyists sell to a good judge who will overturn laws passed by state legislatures. As a result, the election process is tied up in litigation when state election officials need time to prepare to conduct the elections. The courts should not be used to implement sweeping reforms that would not survive scrutiny under more transparent federal law.
Opponents of women’s suffrage tried to use the courts to deny women the right to vote. But the Supreme Court applied the concept of a separate legislature to keep the 19. It is a shame that the leftist and women’s groups – which claim to advance the interests of women voters – have forgotten .
Maya M. Noronha is a human rights lawyer and fellow at the Independent Women’s Law Center.