Bibliogr. 211-212. Przypisy. Na stronie wydawnictwa publikacja ukazała się w listopadzie 2024 r.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s prerogative to interpret the Constitution empowers it to actively influence both the nation’s political and legal spheres. This competence has assumed heightened importance, notably within the context of electoral processes, as legal interpretation directly informs the conduct of elections. This influence is particularly salient in delineating the boundaries of state legislatures’ authority and defining the balance of power in the federal system of government. In recent years, the conservative composition of the Supreme Court has been correlated with an escalation in the fervor of the rhetoric evident in the judgements rendered by this judicial body. A prime example of this, in the context of electoral processes, is the debate around independent state legislature theory (ISLT), which has challenged the established mechanisms of checks and balances constitutionally set to oversee the state’s legislative activities in regard of federal elections. In its 2023 decision in Moore v. Harper, the Court dismissed said dubious legal theory that, if validated, could have allowed state legislatures to engage in gerrymandering and implement voter suppression laws with limited oversight. It could also have subjected state election law to a direct review of the Court, dismissing the existing procedural order. However, the expressed interest of a minority of justices in granting states independent authority over federal elections is a noteworthy point for consideration. The incorporation of constitutional arguments into political discourse, notably exemplified in discussions held around ISLT, can be regarded as a manifestation of the constitutionalization of politics. This process becomes apparent not only in efforts to decentralize competencies to the state level but also within the political dimensions of the Supreme Court’s rulings.