Case Will Test States' Control Over Elections

 Start with the given that the framers of the Constitution did not trust the populace to elect presidents, so they delegated that authority to electors chosen by state legislatures (which were also, for the same reason, empowered to select senators). We have come a long way since that originalist disdain for the wisdom of the common man (women were not even in the equation).

Now the People determine the occupant of the presidency, though not necessarily by a majority, given the peculiarities of the Electoral College. But perhaps not for much longer should the Supreme Court adopt the almost universally reviled, at least in legal circles, notion that state legislatures have almost unchecked power to oversee federal elections. The argument fostered by election deniers and Republicans bent on extreme gerrymandering, is that state legislatures are free to ignore state courts, state constitutions and governors' vetoes in their drawing of districts and oversight of elections. The likely result of this assault on democratic principles, if it succeeds, will be to enable state legislators to reject the choice made by voters and substitute their own slate of presidential electors. Should the Supreme Court sanction such a return to colonial era methodology, our fragile democracy surely will be ended.