During its next session, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the legal validity of the "Independent State Legislature" theory.

The case could cause a massive power shift in election administration. Broadly, a ruling endorsing the theory could bar state courts from weighing in on federal election policy, including redistricting.

Ethan Herenstein, counsel with the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said a previous Supreme Court ruling also blocked federal courts from weighing in on partisan gerrymandering.

"So, in short, if the Supreme Court were to rule for the gerrymanderers in North Carolina, that may mean that state legislatures are free, when it comes to congressional elections, to gerrymander to their heart's delight and there will be no court available to stop them," Herenstein cautioned.

Proponents of the theory contend the constitution grants state legislatures broad authority to administer elections, although it also states "the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regu­la­tions." Herenstein explains the principle would not shield states from violating other federal election laws, and transgressions such as racial gerrymandering could still be prosecuted in federal court.

According to the Brennan Center, the theory was first formed in 2000 by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Since then, Herenstein pointed out it has moved from a fringe ideology to the center of American politics.

"The Independent State Legislature theory is an incredibly radical and unprecedented theory that would throw our elections into chaos," Herenstein argued. "It has been debunked from virtually every conceivable angle."

In a worst-case scenario, the Brennan Center reports legislatures could use the theory to refuse to certify election results and establish their own slate of presidential electors, a strategy virtually identical to a method President Donald Trump attempted to deploy to overturn the 2020 election. The Supreme Court will likely issue a decision on the case next summer.

Republicans in Washington, D.C. remain focused on greatly reducing federal spending. However, a backlash is mounting in Congressional districts, including Minnesota, and some constituents feel ignored. Whether it's executive orders by the Trump administration or budget votes taking shape in Congress, the dramatic downsizing of federal agencies, programs and services has led to heightened concern about the impact on a host of populations.

Brian Vroman, a Grand Rapids resident, said he's worried about the possibility of steep Medicaid cuts. He says even if it's uncomfortable for House Republicans, they still should have face-to-face conversations.

"There's a lot of pent-up anger, frustration and I think that the only way to alleviate that is to have open dialogue. We're not at war with each other," he explained.

Vroman's congressman, Rep. Pete Stauber, R-Duluth, could not be reached for comment. Protesters have gathered outside his office to demand a town hall. GOP leaders have urged a pause on such events to avoid the backlash while painting attendees of recent meetings as "paid activists." Vroman is part of a left-leaning grassroots group, but says he's not paid for his actions and has voted for both parties.

Sarah Jaynes, executive director of the Rural Democracy Initiative, said it's reasonable for voters in conservative districts, including those who consistently vote Republican, to feel blindsided by some of these moves and demand answers. She feels some of the organizing is having an effect.

"[Some] members of Congress are quietly speaking up, and ensuring that funding is continuing to move into their communities," she said.

National political publications have reported that some House GOP members have had "back channel" conversations with the White House to reverse cuts led by Trump adviser Elon Musk. While Democrats have criticized the manner and scope of spending reductions, they too are facing pressure to host more meetings to highlight voter frustration. Some Democrats are now holding town halls in GOP districts.

With Pennsylvania's primary election set for May 20, a nonpartisan group is working to raise awareness about voter registration.

Over 8.7 million Pennsylvanians are eligible to vote in municipal elections.

Amy Widestrom - the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania - said she is concerned about low turnout in local races, noting Montgomery County's 41.9% turnout in 2023.

She says one precinct saw less than 1% - only 379 voters. She emphasized the importance of voting for key positions.

"These are the people that are doing the business of our local counties and our local schools and our local judges and our state courthouses," said Widestrom. "And so these are extraordinarily important elections. And yet, in 2023 for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, we only got a 35% turnout."

She adds Pennsylvanians must register to vote by May 5 to cast a ballot in the primary, and the last day to apply for a mail-in-ballot is May 13.

Widestrom said low voter turnout has been an ongoing issue, especially in off-cycle elections like primaries and odd-year general elections.

She added that the League will host civic engagement events to educate voters on upcoming races.

"We'll be hosting a series of webinars called ballot box basics, highlighting both the importance of these municipal elections, but also, how do you learn about these candidates?" said Widestrom. "So we're going to host a webinar on judging our judges. How do we learn about the judicial candidates?"

Widestrom added that the League will be updating their website at Vote411.org with statewide candidate information before Pennsylvanians head to the polls or mail in their ballot.

More testimony was heard yesterday about term limit reforms in North Dakota, an issue voters around the state might have to decide again.

In 2022, North Dakota voters approved imposing term limits for state lawmakers and the governor. Legislators can no longer serve more than eight years in the House and Senate.

But a handful of bills this session call for another ballot question, to raise state lawmakers' term limit to 12 years.

Sen. Justin Gerhardt, R-Mandan, sponsor of one bill, said the new framework threatens the value of experience at the State Capitol.

"Our citizen-led Legislature meets for only 80 days every two years," Gerhardt pointed out. "By the time a new legislator gets a handle on the budget process, legislative rules and the needs of their district, they're already on their way out the door."

He added his bill also addresses the issue of lawmakers who are appointed to fill a seat. Opponents said the moves undermine the will of the voters.

A separate bill proposing a new statewide vote on the prospective changes will be heard this morning. If one of the measures advances to the ballot, it likely would come up in the 2026 general election.

Those who want term limits said they foster fresh voices in policymaking.

Kevin Herrmann, a resident of Beulah, is one of the many people to testify against the new reform efforts.

"This resolution is a way for legislators to get back their legislative power over the citizens of North Dakota," Herrmann contended.

Another thorny element to this debate is, the 2022 ballot question included language prohibiting state lawmakers from trying to force the issue down the road. One of the bills in question repeals the language in trying to get the question back on the ballot. Backers of the proposals acknowledge they are likely to draw court challenges over constitutional arguments.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email