Rick H. linked to the story earlier, but one specific holding from today’s decision in RNC v. EVA:
The Defendant-Intervenors and the State (collectively, the “Appellants”) argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the SEB rules violated the Federal Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[.]” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 4, cl. 1. We agree.
In the trial court, the Plaintiffs did not demand that the SEB rules be invalidated as violating the Federal Elections Clause and tellingly do not defend on appeal the trial court’s sua sponte grant of relief on this ground. In granting relief on this basis, the trial court relied primarily on concurring and dissenting opinions in various United States Supreme Court decisions, but it failed to apply binding precedent from that Court itself, which squarely rejects the notion that a state legislature cannot ever delegate any election “time, place, manner” regulatory authority to another state body. See, e.g., Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1, 25 (143 SCt 2065, 216 LE2d 729) (2023) (“[A]lthough the [Federal] Elections Clause expressly refers to the ‘Legislature,’ it does not preclude a State from vesting congressional redistricting authority in a body other than the elected group of officials who ordinarily exercise lawmaking power.”); see also Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm., 576 U.S. 787 (135 SCt 2652, 192 LE2d 704) (2015) (rejecting Federal Elections Clause challenge to a state voter initiative to remove redistricting authority from the state legislature and vest that authority with an independent commission). Thus, the trial court erred in finding that the SEB rules violated the Federal Elections Clause.
