Moore v. Harper: Talking Points

Introduction & Overview

The League of Women Voters believes that all Americans deserve an equal opportunity to make their voices heard in our democracy. As an over 100-year-old nonpartisan voting rights organization, with representation in all 50 states, we empower all Americans to have a say in our government, including elections. Elections are our chance to stand up for what matters most to us and to have an impact on the issues that affect us, our communities, our families, and our futures. At the League, our priority will always be the rights of Americans to participate meaningfully in the political process, and we will fight any attempts to suppress those rights.  

In June of 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Moore v. Harper, which considers the "independent state legislature” theory or ISLT. Adoption of the independent state legislature theory by the US Supreme Court would be detrimental to all Americans. It would prevent state courts from ruling on actions of the state legislature that govern federal elections, essentially giving state legislatures unchecked authority to set the rules for federal elections, including redistricting maps. State legislatures would be nearly unrestricted in their ability to choose their voters, instead of the other way around. The League of Women Voters joined this case as an amicus to alert the Court about the real-world implications of the ISLT on voters, election workers, and our democracy.  

LWV is uniquely positioned to argue to the Court in this case, given our involvement in state rules around elections and educating voters in every state. Represented in over 750 communities, our Leagues rely on the uniformity of election rules to educate voters and ensure that voters can navigate the election process with ease. The LWV also relies on state courts to clarify, modify, or enjoin election laws to protect voters. A Supreme Court ruling adopting the independent state legislature theory could potentially nullify hundreds of prior state court rulings on the constitutionality of election laws. This would result in one set of rules for federal elections—where only the state legislature could speak—and another set for state and local elections—where the state courts could determine legality. Such a divided system would cause immense confusion for election workers and voters alike.

Read the Filing Press Release

Talking Points

• In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court could adopt a fringe political theory called the Independent State Legislature Theory, which would give state legislatures nearly unrestricted authority to set the rules for federal elections. 
• The Independent State Legislature Theory allows politicians to manipulate the outcome of elections.  
• If the Independent State Legislature Theory is adopted, it would remove the governmental checks and balances in your state. Unlike today, your governor and state courts would no longer have any say in election rules. 
• A ruling embracing the ISLT could have massive implications for every state.

Guidance for Talking About Your State

State League spokespersons should be the primary individuals speaking for your state on this case. Leagues are encouraged to continue messaging on this case between the arguments and the decision (likely to come in Summer 2023). Pieces like letters to the editor and in-state media interviews will be strongest when they focus on the impacts that this case could have on your state. This is an opportunity for you as in-state spokespersons to bring this case to a personal level for voters in your state.

• Talk about past election laws in your state that have been struck down by your state courts or vetoed by your governor. ISLT would put these laws back into place, and your state executive and judicial branches would have no recourse. 
• For states that have passed laws via direct democracy efforts like ballot initiatives, those may also be in jeopardy should ISLT be adopted. Mention any initiatives that have helped voters in your state. 
• Relate the ISLT to gerrymandering in your state. The ISLT could also undo prior state court decisions that struck down harmful or discriminatory congressional and legislative maps, allowing the bad maps to be in effect. If this theory is adopted, voters and advocacy organizations could not challenge extreme partisan gerrymandering at all in court. 
• Those supporting this theory want to put “politics over people.” This is not what democracy is all about. We encourage the Court to keep people above politics. 
• Keep it personal: “the ISLT allows politicians to thwart your vote.” 
• Stay out of the weeds — keep it simple and set the stakes that ISLT has serious consequences for our elections and our democracy. 
• Avoid bringing in calamitous doom and gloom. A bad ruling in this case would not end democracy as we know it. But it should be taken very seriously, and voters should be aware of what is happening. 
• Use “checks and balances” if you need to counter proponents' argument that it’s “in the constitution”: ISLT would remove all checks and balances at the state level, handing unchecked power to set federal election rules to politicians in the state capital — cutting out the governor and state courts. 
• Helpful reminder: Even with the ISLT, federal courts could rule on the constitutionality of state laws affecting federal and state elections, but those claims are limited.

Additional Resources

• Moore v. Harper: Social Media Graphics