The Supreme Court recently made a decision regarding an election law case out of Montana that could have had significant implications for election procedures nationwide. The case involved two GOP-backed election laws that were struck down by a ruling in Montana. The state was appealing this decision, arguing that only lawmakers should have authority over state elections under the U.S. Constitution.
One of the laws in question aimed to end same-day voter registration, while the other prohibited paid ballot collection. Critics, including the Montana Democratic Party, tribal organizations, and youth groups, contended that these laws disproportionately affected certain groups, such as Native Americans, new voters, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, making it more challenging for them to vote.
The state's highest court had previously ruled that these laws violated voters' rights as protected under the state constitution. However, the Supreme Court's recent decision not to hear the case leaves the lower court's ruling in place.
The legal theory at the center of this case, known as the independent state legislature theory, posits that state judges should not have the authority to consider election-related matters. While the Supreme Court had previously addressed a similar theory in a 2023 case out of North Carolina, it did not provide a detailed explanation for its decision not to take up the Montana case.
Despite the rejection of the independent state legislature theory in the North Carolina case, the Supreme Court's opinion did suggest that there could be limitations on state court involvement in election oversight. This leaves the door open for potential future legal challenges and debates surrounding the role of state courts in regulating election procedures.
