 So, at this point in time, we've officially been ruled by a far-right rogue tyrannical Supreme Court for one whole year. And we lost a plethora of civil rights, civil liberties, and they're just getting started. But next year, they could be taking up the most consequential case ever. Because that case could spell doom for US democracy. And I know that a lot of people throw that around a lot, and many people may take that as hyperbole or an exaggeration to some extent, but maybe there's some legitimacy there. Let me just put this into perspective for you. This case could strip citizens in certain states of the ability to choose who the president is. That's how serious this could be. So, as Mark Joseph Stern of Slate reports, the Supreme Court takes up a case about the independent state legislature doctrine for next term, which could give state legislatures far greater power over all manner of election laws. The case is Morvey Harper, and it's a challenge to the North Carolina Supreme Court's authority to strike down the legislature's extreme partisan gerrymanders under the state constitution. We already know there are four likely votes for the legislature. Now, the core outcome of that case with regard to gerrymandering is important in and of itself. But if this Supreme Court embraces independent state legislature theory, I don't think you can overstate how detrimental that will be to democracy. Now, I tweeted about this and people rightfully pointed out, when have we ever been a democracy? And that is an astute observation. I don't think we're actually a democracy. But, you know, try to visualize democracy on a spectrum. And this is complicated. Political scientists, they still don't really agree on a definition of democracy because it's complex. There's a lot that goes into it. There's a lot of expectations. But what I want for you to do for purposes of this video is visualize democracy on a spectrum. On one end, you have a very free and fair democracy. On the other end, you have authoritarianism. Now, the United States, you can argue, is somewhere in the middle. There's a lot of gray area. I'd argue we kind of air more towards authoritarianism, but we're still in that gray area. There still is democracy. There still is institutions that exist that allow us some say over who we elect. But this case would take things in a very different direction and end what little democracy we have in the United States, at least when it comes to choosing presidential elections. But the implications are much, much broader than that. Now, if you want a more technical and legal analysis about this bogus theory, I'd recommend this Brennan centerpiece, which links to recent scholarship on the issue, as well as Michigan law professor Leah Litman and Catherine Shaw's paper, where they not only debunk the theory based on its lack of legal merit, but describe the dangers that this theory poses to democracy itself. And these aren't the only legal scholars sounding the alarm right now. But for purposes of this video, since we don't have unlimited time, I just want to cut to the core and explain to you what this would mean if the Supreme Court embraced this theory. So as Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow explains, independent state legislature theory attempts to vest all control of elections in the hands of only the state legislature, letting them throw out the decisions of state courts, redistricting commissions, secretaries of state, and even state constitutions. It's a theory that University of Michigan law assistant professor Leah Litman and Cardozo law professor Kate Shaw say should have been called the state legislature as the end of democracy theory in an upcoming paper that heavily critiques the doctrine. If the court applies this theory, because Republicans control both legislative houses in 30 states, including swing states like here in Michigan, it allows them and only them the ability to choose how an election is decided, run, and what districts should look like. If the Supreme Court enshrines independent state legislature theory, it means Trump's Republican Party won't need a coup after the election to install him as president in 2024. They can just change the rules in swing states ahead of time to ensure they get the outcome they want. So as Ken Clippenstein puts it, looks like the Supreme Court is trying to finish what Trump started. In other words, 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, allowing them virtually unlimited power to override secretaries of state, the state constitution. It's genuinely tyrannical and this is something that they're going to be taking up. So by 2024, many, many states might lose the ability to choose the president, which means that Republicans from here on out, they permanently will win because once these, you know, 30 states that Republicans control take power will now legally, they won't be required to give it up. Now I want to go back to that conceptualization of democracy on a spectrum, right? Because I said we're somewhere in the middle in that gray area kind of leaning towards authoritarianism, but still, there's some democratic elements about our system. If the Supreme Court follows through with this and embraces this bogus theory, we firmly are out of the gray area and we are functionally in the authoritarian area. It's not like we're at the end of the authoritarian spectrum. We're not a totalitarian regime, but there's no longer a question. Democracy is done at that point. We are officially an authoritarian regime if they embrace this theory. And once Republicans no longer have to worry about getting voted out of office, that gives them not only a blank check to abuse the power that they already have, but abuse us, violate our constitutional rights without any fear of electoral backlash, be as tyrannical as they want to be because now there's no fear that they'll be voted out of office at the next election. Now, it is not a foregone conclusion that the Supreme Court will take it this far, but we know that some of them are definitely open to it. As NPR explains, the High Court declined in March to weigh in on an emergency request for this case, but in the dissenting opinion, three of the court's conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, signaled they would likely side with the Republican lawmakers embrace of this theory. So that's three. All they need is two more votes and they could end democracy if they embrace this theory as three of them signaled that they will. Now, here's what this could mean for the 2024 election. Vikram Amar, Dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, notes that a hypercharged version of the theory pointing to the elector's clause of the U.S. Constitution served as the backdrop for the fake elector scheme that is a focus of the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol, depending on how broadly the Supreme Court rules in the North Carolina redistricting case. Amar says support for the theory by the court could affect the 2024 presidential election. States with Republican-controlled legislatures could see it as an invitation to set new election rules that take power away from voters when picking electors for the Electoral College or to make state lawmakers not courts, the judges, and disputes after the election. So, hypothetically, let's say they embrace this theory. Well, if states like Georgia, Arizona, go blue again, and those state legislators feel like it, they can just say, we're sending Republican electors to the college, and that's that. Nothing you can do, it's perfectly legal according to the Supreme Court. And then they just get to choose. Red states gets to choose who our presidents will be in perpetuity. And they get to dictate elections in those states, and they don't have to give up power. Just gerrymandering people's rights away. Listen, it is impossible to overstate the gravity of this moment and how serious this is. This could be the end. Literally, this could be the end of U.S. democracy. And again, it's not like we really had a functioning democracy in the first place. But what's left of it goes away like that. That's it. That's the end. So, Democrats who are in power right now, if they do not act and expand the Supreme Court, then we're done. It's as simple as that. We can't wait a decade or two for the makeup of the court to change. And odds are it won't change, right? We don't know how long it's going to take. If this theory goes through and, you know, if it gets accepted by the Supreme Court, then Republicans will be appointing every single Supreme Court justice going forward because they'll have the presidency forever, essentially. So, there's absolutely no time to wait whatsoever. All these Democrats concerned with the filibuster, institutional norms, all of that goes out the window if democracy dies in the United States of America. So, there's only one option. Either you expand the court or you impeach the justices there and you appoint new justices. But that is something that requires two-thirds majority. So, Congress, right now, while Democrats have power, they have to let Biden expand the Supreme Court. Biden must do this. And that's the only option. But they're not going to do that, which means that the situation is very, very bleak. It looks as if the Supreme Court actually embraces this theory, which some justices might. That's it for us. Democracy in the United States is over.