WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a significant election law case from Montana, which had raised questions about the future of how elections are conducted across the country. The case centered on the controversial “independent state legislature” theory, which suggests that state judges should have no authority over election-related cases.
The high court issued a brief order without providing an explanation, as is common in such decisions, effectively allowing the lower court’s ruling to stand. The case involved a challenge to two Republican-sponsored election laws in Montana that were struck down by the state’s highest court. These laws sought to end same-day voter registration and prohibit paid ballot collection.
Montana’s Republican Secretary of State, Christi Jacobsen, argued that only state lawmakers, not courts, should have authority over election laws, in line with her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Jacobsen had asked the Supreme Court to review the case after the state court found that the laws violated voters’ rights under the Montana state constitution.
Opponents of the laws, including the Montana Democratic Party, tribal organizations, and youth advocacy groups, argued that the laws disproportionately affected Native Americans, new voters, the elderly, and people with disabilities, making it more difficult for these groups to vote.
In its ruling, the state court had determined that the laws infringed upon voting rights protected by Montana’s constitution, a decision that now stands. The case also highlighted the ongoing legal debate over the independent state legislature theory, which was largely rejected by the Supreme Court in 2023 in the case Moore v. Harper, which focused on the legality of partisan redistricting in North Carolina. However, that decision left some room for future legal challenges, particularly regarding limits on state courts’ ability to oversee elections.
With the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the Montana case, the legal theory remains unsettled, and the future of election law in the U.S. could continue to be shaped by future rulings and state-level challenges.
