The prestige of the Supreme Court stems from its impartiality and its ability to make decisions that are consistent with the Constitution. Political parties, personal beliefs, and public opinion aside, the Court is solely concerned with the integrity it holds under the Constitution to make objective decisions. Although the Supreme Court is widely known as the interpreter of the supreme law of the land, it is rare that the Court will intervene on a matter that concerns the rulings of a state legislature. The Founding Fathers constructed the Constitution very intentionally; independence was essential and federal oppression was the enemy. This distinction has proven to be a matter of contention throughout our nation’s history. Each state has its own constitution that is under the “big-C” Constitution written in 1787. This is a delicate balance that has been tested, pushed, and at times unstable.

Past cases can give insight into when the Court intervenes in state matters and when they must respect the state’s decisions. Most state power is protected under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution; yet, in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) and Adamson v. California (1947), the Court was conflicted in balancing state and federal powers. A selective incorporation policy was established in Palko and its purpose was to prevent states from violating some essential rights protected in the Constitution. In essence, the Court will decide which provisions can apply to the states. This ultimately gave the states more power when compared to the other doctrine: total incorporation, where, under the Court’s authority the first eight amendments are enforced in states’ rights issues. Selective incorporation leaves all states with the power to implement laws that are unique to their respective state.

These pressing questions raised almost 100 years ago continue to affect how the Court operates. For example, many states with Republican Attorney Generals expressed their frustration with President Donald Trump’s recent election loss citing inconsistent voting laws among different states. There was strong support for Texas’s and Trump’s efforts to reach the Supreme Court with eighteen states expressing their support. The Supreme Court heard their case after more than 86 lawsuits filed by President Trump and others have been lost. Texas’s AG Supreme Court case argued for the invalidation of 62 Electoral College votes belonging to Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

To even bring the case to the Supreme Court, Texas had to alter their argument so that federal damage was the pressing issue rather than concern for the legislatures in other states (in which they would have no jurisdiction). The Texas plaintiff filed the lawsuit citing amici curiae. Meaning “friend of the court” in Latin, it was constructed so that “a person or group who is not a party to an action but has a strong interest in the matter” can still file a suit.¹ Texas’ main argument sought to delegitimize the accused states because they had “selected electors based on a manner established by governors, judges, secretaries of state, election officials, and private parties” that overpower legislative authority; these states are therefore subject to “corruption and foreign interference.”²

According to the beliefs expressed in past cases by justices such as Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, the most appropriate way for the Court to fulfill its duties while maintaining the trust of the American people is to apply constitutional principles as closely to the text of the Constitution as possible. Under this philosophy, it is not the differing conclusions of justices who apply the same standards of review that alters the integrity of the Court. Rather, the Court threatens its own legitimacy when it attempts to act as a super-legislature by imposing change upon the American public. In Texas’s case, overturning a decision made by a democratic republic would place the Court in an autocratic position. The existence of the “three separate, distinct, independent, and coequal departments of government” restricts the court to the specific purpose of upholding the federal Constitution. ³

Pennsylvania passed Act 77 in 2019; Act 77 established mail-voting and was not challenged until it was implemented, utilized by all parties, and aided Pennsylvania in reaching a decision. ⁴ A state legislature can decide to amend their voting procedures; the act was not challenged until after the election and the Pennsylvania Court could no longer reverse the voting procedures because votes had already been counted.

Even if this voting method proved to be inefficient or confusing, the Supreme Court cannot legislate laws that the justices think would be better; the Court’s role is to uphold the Constitution. The effort became officially futile when the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s and all pending cases regarding election results. The case was denied for the “lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution” and because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections” ⁵ Even if Texas’ argument was crafted perfectly, the Court’s asks: why is Texas concerned with the internal elector procedures of other states? Texas’s goal in this case was to prevent the electors from casting their state’s vote. If they could prove that the selection of the electors was improper, they could possibly throw out their votes in the Electoral College.

Ultimately, the democratic process is protected heavily. This lawsuit could not throw out millions of people’s votes because of something as disparate as the appointment process of electors. The election votes were verified by each state in accordance with their respective process; these processes are voted and approved by the representatives of that state. State governments are much more productive and subjective than most people realize, and under a federal republic, they run more independent of the federal government than most people realize. Voting processes are presented, then voted on by all parties that represent the people of each state. The American democratic process is the most important part of maintaining a republic, and while questions should always be raised, the un-elected Supreme Court has always maintained an inability to over-legislate and overrule legislation that is voted on by the people.

The Supreme Court closed the case by denying Texas’s request to file its complaint against the four swing states, stating that “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” However, in analyzing the decision, the Federalist concludes:

“The Supreme Court’s resolution thus “addressed” two separate questions, the first a narrow procedural question: Whether the U.S. Supreme Court must allow a state to file a complaint against another state. Current Supreme Court precedent holds the high court retains discretion to decide whether to accept a lawsuit between two or more states. The Constitution provides the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction,” or the power to hear the case initially for such cases. The Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” for such lawsuits, meaning no other court has the power to hear a case when a state sues another state.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has held that it is not required to accept a complaint filed by one state against another. That is why, to initiate its lawsuit, Texas filed a “Motion for Leave,” or a motion asking permission to file its complaint. Procedurally, then, what the Supreme Court did on Friday was to deny Texas “leave” or permission to file the complaint against the four putative defendant states.”

The Federalist

References