
Voting rights activists gather for a rally outside the White House October 19, 2021 in Washington, DC. People of American Way (PFAW) held a rally on "No More Excuses: Voting Rights Now." (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Voting rights activists gather for a rally outside the White House October 19, 2021 in Washington, DC. People of American Way (PFAW) held a rally on "No More Excuses: Voting Rights Now." (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The following is adapted from oral testimony given Thursday before the United States House Committee on Administration.
As you know, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a case in which some North Carolina legislators have asked the Court to embrace the so-called independent state legislature notion. This is the radical claim ("theory" is too generous a term) positing that the Constitution removes the normal checks on state legislatures when they regulate federal elections.
Even if the Court embraces this radical notion, Congress can thwart many of its worst consequences.
You've already heard that this claim is wrong. Constitutional text, American history, Supreme Court precedent, sound policy, and common sense all refute the idea.
I'll focus on the crushing consequences for American voters and our multiracial democracy if the Supreme Court turns this fringe notion into law. Here are four examples of what this idea could allow.
First, the notion would greenlight partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts.
Second, the radical claim would remove constraints on voter suppression.
Third, the notion would create election chaos, disenfranchising voters and overwhelming election officials.
Fourth, the notion would remove critical checks against election interference and sabotage.
To be clear, the independent state legislature claim is not a license to coup. Federal law prohibits state legislatures from overturning the results of an election. But the notion would open the door to antidemocratic shenanigans. And even failed efforts to manipulate elections erode trust--and, ultimately, participation--in our democracy.
Even if the Court embraces this radical notion, Congress can thwart many of its worst consequences. The Elections Clause, the very same constitutional provision that activists seek to weaponize against democracy, gives Congress the power to enhance and protect voting rights and ensure fair representation.
That's why, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, I urge you to revisit and pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. The bill would set national standards for voting access, prohibit partisan gerrymandering, and add federal protections against election interference and sabotage. This legislation is critically needed.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The following is adapted from oral testimony given Thursday before the United States House Committee on Administration.
As you know, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a case in which some North Carolina legislators have asked the Court to embrace the so-called independent state legislature notion. This is the radical claim ("theory" is too generous a term) positing that the Constitution removes the normal checks on state legislatures when they regulate federal elections.
Even if the Court embraces this radical notion, Congress can thwart many of its worst consequences.
You've already heard that this claim is wrong. Constitutional text, American history, Supreme Court precedent, sound policy, and common sense all refute the idea.
I'll focus on the crushing consequences for American voters and our multiracial democracy if the Supreme Court turns this fringe notion into law. Here are four examples of what this idea could allow.
First, the notion would greenlight partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts.
Second, the radical claim would remove constraints on voter suppression.
Third, the notion would create election chaos, disenfranchising voters and overwhelming election officials.
Fourth, the notion would remove critical checks against election interference and sabotage.
To be clear, the independent state legislature claim is not a license to coup. Federal law prohibits state legislatures from overturning the results of an election. But the notion would open the door to antidemocratic shenanigans. And even failed efforts to manipulate elections erode trust--and, ultimately, participation--in our democracy.
Even if the Court embraces this radical notion, Congress can thwart many of its worst consequences. The Elections Clause, the very same constitutional provision that activists seek to weaponize against democracy, gives Congress the power to enhance and protect voting rights and ensure fair representation.
That's why, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, I urge you to revisit and pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. The bill would set national standards for voting access, prohibit partisan gerrymandering, and add federal protections against election interference and sabotage. This legislation is critically needed.
The following is adapted from oral testimony given Thursday before the United States House Committee on Administration.
As you know, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a case in which some North Carolina legislators have asked the Court to embrace the so-called independent state legislature notion. This is the radical claim ("theory" is too generous a term) positing that the Constitution removes the normal checks on state legislatures when they regulate federal elections.
Even if the Court embraces this radical notion, Congress can thwart many of its worst consequences.
You've already heard that this claim is wrong. Constitutional text, American history, Supreme Court precedent, sound policy, and common sense all refute the idea.
I'll focus on the crushing consequences for American voters and our multiracial democracy if the Supreme Court turns this fringe notion into law. Here are four examples of what this idea could allow.
First, the notion would greenlight partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts.
Second, the radical claim would remove constraints on voter suppression.
Third, the notion would create election chaos, disenfranchising voters and overwhelming election officials.
Fourth, the notion would remove critical checks against election interference and sabotage.
To be clear, the independent state legislature claim is not a license to coup. Federal law prohibits state legislatures from overturning the results of an election. But the notion would open the door to antidemocratic shenanigans. And even failed efforts to manipulate elections erode trust--and, ultimately, participation--in our democracy.
Even if the Court embraces this radical notion, Congress can thwart many of its worst consequences. The Elections Clause, the very same constitutional provision that activists seek to weaponize against democracy, gives Congress the power to enhance and protect voting rights and ensure fair representation.
That's why, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, I urge you to revisit and pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. The bill would set national standards for voting access, prohibit partisan gerrymandering, and add federal protections against election interference and sabotage. This legislation is critically needed.