 Morvey Harper is one of, if not the most consequential cases the Supreme Court is taking up this term, because it could quite literally determine the fate of U.S. democracy. And that's not hyperbole. So this was my reaction back in July of this year when we found out that they were going to be hearing this case. This case could strip citizens in certain states of the ability to choose who the president is. If the Supreme Court embraces this bogus theory, they are instilling in state legislatures virtually unlimited power when it comes to elections. So in the event, for example, there's a presidential election and a Democrat wins in a state like Michigan that's dominated by Republicans. Republicans can do what Trump wanted them to do last time, and they can do this legally. They can just toss out the results of the election and appoint their own electors to the Electoral College. So in that state, the legislature can unilaterally decide who everyone is choosing as president, removing the choice from voters entirely. So you can hear it in my voice that I was exasperated because this could spell doom for U.S. democracy. Now if you want to know what independent state legislature theory is, well, watch that video. I'll link to it down below. I'll give you a more robust explanation as to what that is. Long story short, legal expert after legal expert has sounded the alarm about this theory and how it would be dangerous to U.S. democracy. Here's a quick rundown courtesy of HuffPost of the main implications here. Its adoption would place legislatures outside of the purview of state constitutions, effectively ending state court judicial review of election laws or congressional district maps. There would also be no gubernatorial veto of such laws. Even administration would effectively short circuit as every little change would need to be approved by a legislature and citizen backed ballot initiatives on election or redistricting law would no longer be allowed. Now we're only scratching the surface with that paragraph. Essentially, this could even potentially allow states to overthrow the results of their elections. So in the event, let's say Trump were to lose Michigan, they could unilaterally throw out that results and install their own slate of fake electors. That would be permissible if this theory is endorsed. Now the case itself involves North Carolina redistricting and that in and of itself is very important but essentially the Republicans here are using independent state legislature theory to make the case for their extremely gerrymandered map. Now we already know that the liberal justices are extremely hostile towards this or we're going to be hostile towards this but the question is where do the conservatives stand knowing that a couple of them had already preemptively vocalized a little bit of support for it. Well, we're kind of finding out now because oral arguments for more of you Harper began this week and here's where the justices stand. As Politico reports, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struggled to find consensus about a legal theory that could strip states' courts ability to review election laws passed by legislatures but a critical block of justices seemed likely to reject the most robust version of that theory that could unleash dramatic changes in how states oversee elections. The spotlight for Wednesday's oral arguments was focused on three of the high court's six conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. Those three justices will likely serve as the deciding factor in any decision. The court's three liberals were extremely hostile to the theory during oral arguments while the three other conservatives have signaled sympathy for a muscular version of the theory both in previous writings and during arguments in front of the court on Wednesday. That left Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh as the justices who would likely be the backbone of any controlling opinion out of the court, questioning from Roberts to David Thompson who was representing the Republican legislators showed hostility to the theory. So let's pause right there and see where we're at here. So we have the three liberal justices who are openly hostile towards it plus Roberts who's also hostile towards it. And then we have Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch who are seemingly more sympathetic towards the arguments and the legal rationale for independent state legislature theory. This leaves Barrett and Kavanaugh. The fate of democracy lies in their hands. So is at least one of them. Which is all we need for a majority seemingly going to reject the arguments here. And based on oral arguments, although we can't confirm this, it does seem as if yes, one of them will side with Roberts and the liberals here. Kavanaugh's and Barrett's questions to Thompson were less revealing than those from Roberts but Kavanaugh seemingly suggested that the version of the independent state legislature theory advanced by the North Carolina lawmakers was going too far. He noted that North Carolina was trying to go further than then Chief Justice William Rehnquist's concurrence in the 2000 case Bush v. Gore which is the origin of the theory that state courts have overstepped their role and that they could be hemmed in some way. Kavanaugh also raised a brief from the Conference of Chief Justices, a collection of chief jurists from the states asking how to square their writing about the history of state courts, applying state constitutions to federal elections with the independent state legislature theory. But meanwhile also seemed skeptical at times of the argument that Thompson was advancing noting that state constitutions could be amended. But this is key, later Roberts questioning to Neil Katyal who represented the groups that challenged the initial legislatively drawn maps showed how some of the courts swing conservative justices could still potentially rule in favor of the GOP lawmakers without embracing a robust interpretation of the independent state legislature theory. Roberts seemed to be potentially probing for a way to constrain state courts in some way, particularly on what could be decisions based on broad constitutional provisions. So what does this all mean? Well, first and foremost, we don't know for sure. This is us gathering what they may do or how they may vote based on their oral arguments, but we won't know for sure until they release the decision in May or June. But what it does seem is that Roberts is open to the idea of curtailing at least some of the courts here, but he is not open to independent state legislature theory. So worst case scenario based on what we've seen is they approve of North Carolina's gerrymandered maps and they give them a win without unleashing independent state legislature theory on all of us. Now, that's certainly not ideal, but is it better than them just saying, yes, you win and you're right about independent state legislature theory? Yes, if they were to legitimize this theory, I mean, the damage that that would do to US democracy would be irreparable. It would be irreparable. What Trump tried to do in 2020 would be possible and more likely if they were to say we endorse independent state legislature theory. But for Kavanaugh to say their interpretation is even going further than a Rehn quest in the 2000 case of Bush v Gore. That's a good indication that they know that there's no legal basis for this. Now, that hasn't stopped them before, but that goes to show that this theory is so extreme that legal experts are correct. It's just bunk. There's no way you can you can frame this in any other way. It's a dumb ass theory and the biggest or the most sweeping interpretation of this, which is what is being pushed is just not feasible at all. Even if you do have individuals like Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch seemingly sympathetic to their arguments, most of the justices, at least based on what we're hearing, don't seem open to it. Now, the liberal justices, we're not really focusing on them because we kind of know how they're going to vote anyway. But they had some really important points. Kagan, for example, talked about how this could open the door to sweeping changes, independent state legislature theory would be massive. And I think that really the rhetorical and legal death blow was dealt by Justice Cantaji Brown Jackson, who said this, what I don't understand is how you can cut the state constitution out of the equation when it is giving the state legislature the authority to exercise legislative power. And that is a devastating point, a devastating point. You're saying that the state constitution doesn't matter. And that the state legislature has the authority to override them when all of their power is derived from the state constitution. So it doesn't make sense on its face. And that's such a good point. So what's the takeaway from all this? Well, again, I want to stress that we don't know. But based on what we've gathered here, it doesn't necessarily seem as if the worst case scenario is going to come to fruition. So we can kind of read a little bit easier. But of course, we'll have to wait for confirmation until the final decision is released. But for now, I do feel a little bit of relief knowing that it doesn't seem like they're open to independent state legislature theory. And in the event they side with Republicans in North Carolina, it doesn't seem like they're going to fully embrace independent state legislature theory, at least based on their questioning during or during oral arguments, excuse me. So this is pretty good news. And again, I want to emphasize, even though I sound redundant, we don't know for sure. But am I going to personally breathe a little bit easier after hearing the oral arguments and knowing that the justices aren't that receptive, aren't buying ISLT in some instances? Absolutely, because this was a case of enormous consequence and to know that it may not be as bad as I thought. I do feel better about this and I hope that you do, too. Thank you.