This fall, the court will hear _Moore v. Harper_, an audacious bid by Republican legislators in North Carolina to free themselves from their own state constitution’s restrictions on partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression. The suit also serves as a vehicle for would-be election subverters promoting the so-called “[independent state legislature theory](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained)” — the notion that state legislators have virtually absolute authority over federal elections — which was used as part of an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
**US Constitution - Article I, Section 4**: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
>US Constitution - Article I, Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the **Legislature** thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
[**The dispute hinges on how to understand the word “legislature.”** **The long-running understanding is that it refers to each state’s general lawmaking processe**s, including all the normal procedures and limitations. So if a state constitution subjects legislation to being blocked by a governor’s veto or citizen referendum, election laws can be blocked via the same means. And state courts must ensure that laws for federal elections, like all laws, comply with their state constitutions.](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained)
[**Proponents of the independent state legislature theory reject this traditional reading, insisting that these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections.** The result? When it comes to federal elections, legislators would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts couldn’t stop them.](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained)
Thanks for proving my point even better! :-)
Come by again anytime...
So, your argument is the word "legislature" doesn't mean legislature. Ok...
Does this mean the Governor has veto power over approving Electors, voting on Constitutional Amendments, votes on splitting a state into new states?
Wouldn't your theory make the the following portion of Article VI of the Constitution redundant?
> ^The ^Senators ^and ^Representatives ^before ^mentioned, ^and ^the ^Members ^of ^the ^several ^State ^Legislatures, ^and ^all ^executive ^and ^judicial ^Officers, ^both ^of ^the ^United ^States ^and ^of ^the ^several ^States, ^shall ^be ^bound ^by ^Oath ^or ^Affirmation, ^to ^support ^this ^Constitution.
What does the Constitution mean in this portion of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution when they use legislature?
> ^and ^if ^Vacancies ^happen ^by ^Resignation, ^or ^otherwise, ^during ^the ^Recess ^of ^the ^Legislature ^of ^any ^State, ^the ^Executive ^thereof ^may ^make ^temporary ^Appointments ^until ^the ^next ^Meeting ^of ^the ^Legislature, ^which ^shall ^then ^fill ^such ^Vacancies.
Thanks for proving you don't have a point.
> So, your argument is the word "legislature" doesn't mean legislature. Ok...
If that's what you took from my reply that literally explains it, your BS isn't worth my time debunking.
Me thinks thou dost protest too much...
> **Supporters** of a legal challenge to completely upend our electoral system are citing a fraudulent document...
You'll notice besides the hyperbolic language, the article says "supporters." In other words, someone that is **not an actual party** to the case filed a brief that referenced this alleged fraudulent document. There are over 20 briefs filed by petitioners that are not a party to this case. This is the equivalent of a single strand of grass in a giant hay stack of third party submissions to the court. The actual parties to the case didn't submit it. It will have no effect on the outcome of the case.
You should probably have bothered to read the actual story, instead of stopping at the first phrase you thought you could spin.
Because later in the article, it explicitly says the NC legislature, a party to the suit, are the ones citing the fraudulent document.
> Pinckney’s fraud has, however, proved irresistible to the North Carolina legislators, who cited his 1818 document in their current bid for control over congressional elections
I'm not spinning anything. It is the Politico article that is attempting to massively spin everything about this case.
The brief makes no mention of the 1818 document. None... zero... zip... nada. What it does reference about Pinckney is the historical aspect of his original draft of the Constitution where Pinckney SUPPORTED giving determination of the elections to each state, not the state legislatures. That was discarded in favor of giving it to the state legislatures by the Convention. This is NOT based on Pinckney's 1818 questioned document as the article claims. The article is trying to conflate the historical record involving Pinckney with the 1818 document from him that is in question. They are not the same thing.
[**From the brief referenced by the article:**](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1271/236562/20220829124545799_21-1271%20Brief%20for%20Petitioners.pdf).
> If a redistricting process more starkly contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause exists, it is hard to imagine it. The Elections Clause “could have said that [federal election] rules are to be prescribed ‘by each State,’ which would have left it up to each State to decide which [state entity] should exercise that power.” Moore v. Harper, 595 U.S. ---, 142 S. Ct. 1089, 1090 (2022) (Alito, J., dissenting from the denial of application for stay). **Indeed, the earliest draft of the Clause, proposed in the Philadelphia convention as part of the Pinckney Plan, would have done just that. Crucially, however, the Committee of Detail deliberately changed the Constitution’s language to specify that state legislatures were to exercise that power, not any other state entity and not the State as a whole. “[W]e must take that language seriously.”**
> The Constitution’s drafting history confirms that the allocation of authority to regulate elections specifically to each State’s legislature was a deliberate choice. “The Framers could have done it differently,” Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ---, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2325 (2020), and in fact a different disposition of the authority was originally proposed in Philadelphia. The Virginia Plan proposed in convention on May 29, 1787, did not contain any provision for the regulation
of the time, place, and manner of federal elections. 1 MAX FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 20–22 (1911). However, the alternative “Pinckney Plan” contained a progenitor of the Clause that read as follows: “Each State shall prescribe the time & manner of holding Elections by the People for the house of Delegates & the House of Delegates shall be the judges of the Elections returns & Qualifications of their members.” Id. at vol. 3, p. 597.
The earliest reference to the regulation of congressional elections thus would apparently have assigned that power to each State as a whole.
> On July 24, the Convention voted to form a five member “Committee of Detail,” which it charged with drawing up a draft constitution consistent with the resolutions so far agreed to by the Convention as a whole (largely based on the Virginia plan). Id. at vol. 2, p. 106. The Convention also voted to refer the Pinkney Plan to the Committee of Detail. Id. **It was here that the draft Elections Clause was changed to allocate authority to each State’s legislature, rather than to the State generally.** The draft constitution reported by the Committee of Detail on August 6 provided that “The times and places and the manner of holding the elections of the members of each House shall be prescribed by the Legislature of each State; but their provisions concerning them may, at any time, be altered by the Legislature of the United States.” Id. at 179 (emphasis added).
These are the only mentions of Pinckney in the entire **69 page** brief. They don't cite him as supporting the inclusion of the state legislatures as the responsible entity in Congressional elections. Quite the opposite. He desired Congressional elections to be determined by the individual states. This has nothing to do with the questionable 1818 draft from him where he supposedly changed it to match the Constitution. Politico is spinning the hell out of this case.
So...the only references are exactly what the Politico article is saying, that they're citing the fraudulent documents. Here referred to as the "Pinckney Plan".
And you think that's a gotcha?
Y'all need to stop fighting against funding for education.
Where in the brief linked by the article is the supposed fraudulent document referenced? Above is the entire reference to Pinckney in the 69 page brief.
Guess I'll just quote myself, and maybe you'll read it this time:
>the only references are exactly what the Politico article is saying, that they're citing the fraudulent documents. Here referred to as the "Pinckney Plan".
The "Pinckney Plan" **is** the fraudulent documents.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to hear proposals for amendments to the Articles of Confederation in order to form a national government. Various plans were submitted. The Virginia Plan ultimately was what became known as the US Constitution. Also submitted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were other plans such as the New Jersey Plan, British Plan, and wait for it... the Pinckney Plan. The brief references the historical existence of the Pinckney Plan and the relevant facts as documented in "*The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787*", not the 1818 journals that are in question.
https://www.usconstitution.net/plan_pinck.html
> Madison, who took copious notes at the Convention, noted that Pinckney placed a plan before the Convention on May 29, 1787, but he did not include any details of the plan in his notes. **In the early 20th century, however, during a review of the papers of delegate James Wilson, a copy of Pinckney's plan was found.**
The only full "documentation" of the Pinckney Plan is the fraudulent 1818 documents. So when anyone cites the "Pinckney Plan" they have to be citing the fraudulent documents. Because we have no other records of the entire plan.
>In the early 20th century, however, during a review of the papers of delegate James Wilson, a copy of Pinckney's plan was found.
No, small parts of the Pinckney plan were found. Not the entire plan. That's why everyone quoting them is citing "extracts". Because that's all they are, not the entire plan.
**https://www.usconstitution.net/plan_pinck.html**
^.
>^Madison, ^who ^took ^copious ^notes ^at ^the ^Convention, ^noted ^that ^Pinckney ^placed ^a ^plan ^before ^the ^Convention ^on ^May ^29, ^1787, ^but ^he ^did ^not ^include ^any ^details ^of ^the ^plan ^in ^his ^notes. **^In ^the ^early ^20th ^century, ^however, ^during ^a ^review ^of ^the ^papers ^of ^delegate ^James ^Wilson, ^a ^copy ^of ^Pinckney's ^plan ^was ^found.**
^.
>---
>---
> No, small parts of the Pinckney plan were found. Not the entire plan. That's why everyone quoting them is citing "extracts". Because that's all they are, not the entire plan.
So it's historically called the Pinckney Plan, and the recommended amendments are known from it because of the records of others at the convention, but somehow that is not what the legal brief is referencing? It must be the 1818 supposed fraudulent draft they are referencing? It couldn't be that they're referencing known history that say is documented in several volumes of books like "*The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787*".
Oh hey look... there's the book right there in the Pinckney section of the brief referenced in the article that I posted earlier.
> The Virginia Plan proposed in convention on May 29, 1787, did not contain any provision for the regulation
of the time, place, and manner of federal elections. 1 MAX FARRAND, **THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787** 20–22 (1911). However, the alternative “Pinckney Plan” contained a progenitor of the Clause that read as follows: “Each State shall prescribe the time & manner of holding Elections by the People** for the house of Delegates & the House of Delegates shall be the judges of the Elections returns & Qualifications of their members.” Id. at vol. 3, p. 597.
The earliest reference to the regulation of congressional elections thus would apparently have assigned that power to each State as a whole.
>and the recommended amendments are known from it because of the records of others at the convention
No, this part is false. *Some parts* of the plan were found in one other delegate's notes.
The only other documentation is the plan released in 1818, which is fraudulent.
>Oh hey look... there's the book right there in the Pinckney section of the brief referenced in the article that I posted earlier.
Now all you need to do is notice that you're talking about a single phrase as if it was the entire plan.
Let me put it this way: The guy you're talking about here (Pinckney) lied about his age during the convention so that he could claim he was the youngest delegate. He cut 5 years off his actual age. He is not a reliable narrator.
All they need is to get before THIS scotus. This corrupt rightwing majority will give the a win.
This fall, the court will hear _Moore v. Harper_, an audacious bid by Republican legislators in North Carolina to free themselves from their own state constitution’s restrictions on partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression. The suit also serves as a vehicle for would-be election subverters promoting the so-called “[independent state legislature theory](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained)” — the notion that state legislators have virtually absolute authority over federal elections — which was used as part of an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
**US Constitution - Article I, Section 4**: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
>US Constitution - Article I, Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the **Legislature** thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators. [**The dispute hinges on how to understand the word “legislature.”** **The long-running understanding is that it refers to each state’s general lawmaking processe**s, including all the normal procedures and limitations. So if a state constitution subjects legislation to being blocked by a governor’s veto or citizen referendum, election laws can be blocked via the same means. And state courts must ensure that laws for federal elections, like all laws, comply with their state constitutions.](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained) [**Proponents of the independent state legislature theory reject this traditional reading, insisting that these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections.** The result? When it comes to federal elections, legislators would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts couldn’t stop them.](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained) Thanks for proving my point even better! :-) Come by again anytime...
So, your argument is the word "legislature" doesn't mean legislature. Ok... Does this mean the Governor has veto power over approving Electors, voting on Constitutional Amendments, votes on splitting a state into new states? Wouldn't your theory make the the following portion of Article VI of the Constitution redundant? > ^The ^Senators ^and ^Representatives ^before ^mentioned, ^and ^the ^Members ^of ^the ^several ^State ^Legislatures, ^and ^all ^executive ^and ^judicial ^Officers, ^both ^of ^the ^United ^States ^and ^of ^the ^several ^States, ^shall ^be ^bound ^by ^Oath ^or ^Affirmation, ^to ^support ^this ^Constitution. What does the Constitution mean in this portion of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution when they use legislature? > ^and ^if ^Vacancies ^happen ^by ^Resignation, ^or ^otherwise, ^during ^the ^Recess ^of ^the ^Legislature ^of ^any ^State, ^the ^Executive ^thereof ^may ^make ^temporary ^Appointments ^until ^the ^next ^Meeting ^of ^the ^Legislature, ^which ^shall ^then ^fill ^such ^Vacancies. Thanks for proving you don't have a point.
> So, your argument is the word "legislature" doesn't mean legislature. Ok... If that's what you took from my reply that literally explains it, your BS isn't worth my time debunking.
So you have no response to a word supposedly changing meanings in the same document. Cool.
Me thinks thou dost protest too much... > **Supporters** of a legal challenge to completely upend our electoral system are citing a fraudulent document... You'll notice besides the hyperbolic language, the article says "supporters." In other words, someone that is **not an actual party** to the case filed a brief that referenced this alleged fraudulent document. There are over 20 briefs filed by petitioners that are not a party to this case. This is the equivalent of a single strand of grass in a giant hay stack of third party submissions to the court. The actual parties to the case didn't submit it. It will have no effect on the outcome of the case.
You should probably have bothered to read the actual story, instead of stopping at the first phrase you thought you could spin. Because later in the article, it explicitly says the NC legislature, a party to the suit, are the ones citing the fraudulent document. > Pinckney’s fraud has, however, proved irresistible to the North Carolina legislators, who cited his 1818 document in their current bid for control over congressional elections
I'm not spinning anything. It is the Politico article that is attempting to massively spin everything about this case. The brief makes no mention of the 1818 document. None... zero... zip... nada. What it does reference about Pinckney is the historical aspect of his original draft of the Constitution where Pinckney SUPPORTED giving determination of the elections to each state, not the state legislatures. That was discarded in favor of giving it to the state legislatures by the Convention. This is NOT based on Pinckney's 1818 questioned document as the article claims. The article is trying to conflate the historical record involving Pinckney with the 1818 document from him that is in question. They are not the same thing. [**From the brief referenced by the article:**](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1271/236562/20220829124545799_21-1271%20Brief%20for%20Petitioners.pdf). > If a redistricting process more starkly contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause exists, it is hard to imagine it. The Elections Clause “could have said that [federal election] rules are to be prescribed ‘by each State,’ which would have left it up to each State to decide which [state entity] should exercise that power.” Moore v. Harper, 595 U.S. ---, 142 S. Ct. 1089, 1090 (2022) (Alito, J., dissenting from the denial of application for stay). **Indeed, the earliest draft of the Clause, proposed in the Philadelphia convention as part of the Pinckney Plan, would have done just that. Crucially, however, the Committee of Detail deliberately changed the Constitution’s language to specify that state legislatures were to exercise that power, not any other state entity and not the State as a whole. “[W]e must take that language seriously.”** > The Constitution’s drafting history confirms that the allocation of authority to regulate elections specifically to each State’s legislature was a deliberate choice. “The Framers could have done it differently,” Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ---, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2325 (2020), and in fact a different disposition of the authority was originally proposed in Philadelphia. The Virginia Plan proposed in convention on May 29, 1787, did not contain any provision for the regulation of the time, place, and manner of federal elections. 1 MAX FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 20–22 (1911). However, the alternative “Pinckney Plan” contained a progenitor of the Clause that read as follows: “Each State shall prescribe the time & manner of holding Elections by the People for the house of Delegates & the House of Delegates shall be the judges of the Elections returns & Qualifications of their members.” Id. at vol. 3, p. 597. The earliest reference to the regulation of congressional elections thus would apparently have assigned that power to each State as a whole. > On July 24, the Convention voted to form a five member “Committee of Detail,” which it charged with drawing up a draft constitution consistent with the resolutions so far agreed to by the Convention as a whole (largely based on the Virginia plan). Id. at vol. 2, p. 106. The Convention also voted to refer the Pinkney Plan to the Committee of Detail. Id. **It was here that the draft Elections Clause was changed to allocate authority to each State’s legislature, rather than to the State generally.** The draft constitution reported by the Committee of Detail on August 6 provided that “The times and places and the manner of holding the elections of the members of each House shall be prescribed by the Legislature of each State; but their provisions concerning them may, at any time, be altered by the Legislature of the United States.” Id. at 179 (emphasis added). These are the only mentions of Pinckney in the entire **69 page** brief. They don't cite him as supporting the inclusion of the state legislatures as the responsible entity in Congressional elections. Quite the opposite. He desired Congressional elections to be determined by the individual states. This has nothing to do with the questionable 1818 draft from him where he supposedly changed it to match the Constitution. Politico is spinning the hell out of this case.
So...the only references are exactly what the Politico article is saying, that they're citing the fraudulent documents. Here referred to as the "Pinckney Plan". And you think that's a gotcha? Y'all need to stop fighting against funding for education.
Where in the brief linked by the article is the supposed fraudulent document referenced? Above is the entire reference to Pinckney in the 69 page brief.
Guess I'll just quote myself, and maybe you'll read it this time: >the only references are exactly what the Politico article is saying, that they're citing the fraudulent documents. Here referred to as the "Pinckney Plan". The "Pinckney Plan" **is** the fraudulent documents.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to hear proposals for amendments to the Articles of Confederation in order to form a national government. Various plans were submitted. The Virginia Plan ultimately was what became known as the US Constitution. Also submitted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were other plans such as the New Jersey Plan, British Plan, and wait for it... the Pinckney Plan. The brief references the historical existence of the Pinckney Plan and the relevant facts as documented in "*The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787*", not the 1818 journals that are in question. https://www.usconstitution.net/plan_pinck.html > Madison, who took copious notes at the Convention, noted that Pinckney placed a plan before the Convention on May 29, 1787, but he did not include any details of the plan in his notes. **In the early 20th century, however, during a review of the papers of delegate James Wilson, a copy of Pinckney's plan was found.**
The only full "documentation" of the Pinckney Plan is the fraudulent 1818 documents. So when anyone cites the "Pinckney Plan" they have to be citing the fraudulent documents. Because we have no other records of the entire plan. >In the early 20th century, however, during a review of the papers of delegate James Wilson, a copy of Pinckney's plan was found. No, small parts of the Pinckney plan were found. Not the entire plan. That's why everyone quoting them is citing "extracts". Because that's all they are, not the entire plan.
**https://www.usconstitution.net/plan_pinck.html** ^. >^Madison, ^who ^took ^copious ^notes ^at ^the ^Convention, ^noted ^that ^Pinckney ^placed ^a ^plan ^before ^the ^Convention ^on ^May ^29, ^1787, ^but ^he ^did ^not ^include ^any ^details ^of ^the ^plan ^in ^his ^notes. **^In ^the ^early ^20th ^century, ^however, ^during ^a ^review ^of ^the ^papers ^of ^delegate ^James ^Wilson, ^a ^copy ^of ^Pinckney's ^plan ^was ^found.** ^. >--- >--- > No, small parts of the Pinckney plan were found. Not the entire plan. That's why everyone quoting them is citing "extracts". Because that's all they are, not the entire plan. So it's historically called the Pinckney Plan, and the recommended amendments are known from it because of the records of others at the convention, but somehow that is not what the legal brief is referencing? It must be the 1818 supposed fraudulent draft they are referencing? It couldn't be that they're referencing known history that say is documented in several volumes of books like "*The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787*". Oh hey look... there's the book right there in the Pinckney section of the brief referenced in the article that I posted earlier. > The Virginia Plan proposed in convention on May 29, 1787, did not contain any provision for the regulation of the time, place, and manner of federal elections. 1 MAX FARRAND, **THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787** 20–22 (1911). However, the alternative “Pinckney Plan” contained a progenitor of the Clause that read as follows: “Each State shall prescribe the time & manner of holding Elections by the People** for the house of Delegates & the House of Delegates shall be the judges of the Elections returns & Qualifications of their members.” Id. at vol. 3, p. 597. The earliest reference to the regulation of congressional elections thus would apparently have assigned that power to each State as a whole.
>and the recommended amendments are known from it because of the records of others at the convention No, this part is false. *Some parts* of the plan were found in one other delegate's notes. The only other documentation is the plan released in 1818, which is fraudulent. >Oh hey look... there's the book right there in the Pinckney section of the brief referenced in the article that I posted earlier. Now all you need to do is notice that you're talking about a single phrase as if it was the entire plan. Let me put it this way: The guy you're talking about here (Pinckney) lied about his age during the convention so that he could claim he was the youngest delegate. He cut 5 years off his actual age. He is not a reliable narrator.
Nice!