Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

'Independent state legislature theory' is unconstitutional

Congress certifies the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, 2021
Congress meets to ratify the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, 2021.
Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Jamison is a retired attorney who is now a writer in Fresno, Calif.

The extreme right reportedly may create chaos through pet poll workers at various precincts in swing states in 2024. The state legislature would then rely on the chaos to use the “independent state legislature doctrine” to reject the votes of the state’s citizens and make its own slate of presidential electors.

The theory, which holds that a state legislature’s action cannot be overturned by the state’s judiciary, rests on this language in the Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

But it's not simple


A legislature would seek to have its slate of electors counted as the official certified slate when Congress convenes to count electoral votes, hoping thereby to create a majority of electors for their candidate that would not otherwise exist, or cause no candidate to have a majority of electors. If no candidate has a majority, the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to choose the president:

“[I]n choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote ... and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The single votes of the party that controls the delegations of 26 states would thus select the president.

The independent state legislature doctrine has never been tested in the Supreme Court, but it may happen following the 2024 election. Other provisions of the Constitution presumably would be considered, such as the guarantee to every state of a republican form of government, the oath to support the Constitution that state officials must give, and the supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws protecting civil rights.

But the historically ignored Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1868, should cause state legislatures not to try the doctrine. Section 2 states:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state. ... But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President ... is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

A legislature’s denying 100 percent of the state’s 21-year-old male citizens the right to vote by completely taking it away will proportionately reduce the basis of representation (“persons in each state”) by 100 percent. The state will have no representatives.

If the 19th and 26th amendments now require the right to vote of female and 18-year-old citizens to be included in the reduction of representation, denial of 100 percent of their rights has the same effect.

The independent state legislature doctrine could thus result in no representation in the House; loss of help for its citizens that House representation provides; loss of electors for the election at hand if Section 2 were interpreted to eliminate then-existing House representation in determining the state’s number of electors; loss of Electors for the next election if Section 2 only applies prospectively; and loss of electors for both elections if Section 2 applies to both.

Also, if no candidate has a majority of electors, a state’s loss of all of its representatives in the House could mean that state has no single vote for president.

A party’s majority in the House could also be lost for future legislation.

If Section 2 of the 14th Amendment were interpreted to reduce representation partially, critical electors could still be lost for the legislature’s candidate along with control of the state’s single vote for president.

The independent state legislature doctrine bombs.

Read More

majority vs minority
Sanga Park/Getty Images

Make a choice: majoritarian democracy or minority tyranny?

Nelson is a retired attorney and served as an associate justice of the Montana Supreme Court from 1993 through 2012.

What is more American than majority rule — the principle that 50.1 percent carries the day when decisions affecting all of us are made? The majority wins, and the minority has to accept, even if not graciously, the decision of the greater number. That’s how decisions are made in this country. Right?

Not necessarily!

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump

Jabin Botsford/Getty Images

Scholars unmask Trump election lawyers’ use of falsified evidence

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

After 2022’s midterm election, I had an email exchange with Robert Beadles, a combative northern Nevada businessman and Donald Trump devotee. His post-2020 hounding of Reno’s top election official had pushed her to resign. Beadles didn’t trust the midterm results either and offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who’d prove that it was not stolen.

Easy money, right? Beadles’ distrust was tribal. But his reward hinged on refuting a statistical analysis that he waved like the flag. His statistician, Edward Solomon, who lived halfway across the country, found mathematical aberrations in the results that he didn’t like. The men claimed that was proof enough that the announced election results were dishonest.

I, and several experienced analysts — a math PhD, a computer scientist, and an election auditor who had spent years studying election systems, voting data, and procedures — tried to explain why the statistics, alone, did not prove anything. We politely told him what records to obtain, why they mattered, what methodologies to use. Beadles didn’t care and soon lashed out.

Keep ReadingShow less
D.C. Police Officer Daniel Hodges shakes hands with Rep. Liz Cheney at a hearing

Officer Daniel Hodges of the D.C. police force shakes hands with then-Rep. Liz Cheney at a July 21, 2022, House committee hearing investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Remembering Jan. 6 with an officer injured in the line of duty

To mark the third anniversary of the attacks on the Capitol, the hosts of the “Politics Is Everything” podcast talked with D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who was beaten by rioters that day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Election challengers in Detroit in 2020

Election challengers demand to observe the counting of absentee ballots in Detroirt in 2020. The room had reached capacity.

Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images

It's 2024 and the battle for democracy in the U.S. continues

Merloe provides strategic advice on democracy and elections to U.S. and international organizations. He is a former director of election integrity programs at the nonpartisan National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

The U.S. political environment is suffering from toxic polarization, with election deniers constantly spewing noxious vapors to negate belief in the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, the integrity of election administration, and the honorableness of their political opponents. The constant pollution has blinded many from seeing the real state of things and is causing others to close their eyes to avoid the irritation. The resulting diminished public confidence and perhaps participation in elections creates more precarious conditions in 2024 than it faced in 2020 and 2022.

I’ve learned an important lesson from observing elections in more than 50 countries: Even when elections are credible, if a large segment of the population is made to believe otherwise their outcome and the fate of democracy can easily be placed in jeopardy. Unfortunately, that is a central feature of the present electoral circumstance, and concerted action is needed to mitigate that damage and prevent it from worsening.

Keep ReadingShow less