http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/18voter.html?_r=1&hp
How does this work? Is it normal for some cases to get overturned from a lower level? Am I misunderstanding what’s going on?
The answer is in the article:
The Indiana Supreme Court hasn’t overturned the SCOTUS decision. The two courts were applying different constitutional principles: SCOTUS found that the law didn’t infringe the federal Constitution, but the Indiana Supreme Court found that it did infringe the Indian Constitution.
Deleted
I thought your article explained it quite well. Here is the key paragraph:
The major difference between the state court decision and the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is that the state court was interpreting the Indiana Constitution, while the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution of the United States. Generally, state courts are given the last word in interpreting their own constitutions.
The first challenge was in Federal courts over a point of Federal law. The US SC is the final arbitrator on Federal law.
Once that failed it was challenged in Indiana courts over a point of Indiana law. The Indiana SC is the final arbitrator on Indiana law. So while the two cases were nearly identical, because of the fact that the issue in question could potentially run afoul of both the State and National constitutions, those opposed to this voting law had two shots at getting it nullified.
The two systems are separate. And the US SC isn’t really a higher court. Generally the only time the US SC can get involved in a question of state law is if a case can be made that the state law somehow violates federal law.
Generally the only time the US SC can get involved in a question of state law is if a case can be made that the state law somehow violates federal law.
… or THEY want George Bush to be President
[Moderator Note]
Political commentary of this kind should be avoided in GQ. No warning issued, but don’t do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
A state supreme court has the last word in interpreting its state’s constitution and laws, as noted above, unless there’s a Federal issue.
In 1977, Justice William Brennan, alarmed at what he saw as the U.S. Supreme Court’s retreat from protecting civil liberties, encouraged lawyers and citizens to look for those rights in their own state constitutions: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7758/is_200710/ai_n32254094/
SCOTUS did overrule state constitutions in the one-man/one-vote decision in the mid 60s, ruling that, for example, the provision in the NJ constitution giving each county one state senator violated the equal protection clause of the US constitution and since that is supreme, that was that. They explicitly said that the analogy with the US constitution’s Senate clause was not binding since a county is a creature of the state and not a sovereign that had voluntarily entered into a union.
This was quite s shift, since earlier courts had ruled it was none of their business if, for example, PA had not redistricted since 1910 in violation of its own constitution, it was not up to SCOTUS to mix in, even if it violated the equal protection clause in the US constitution. This was particularly nasty since the over-represented districts had no interest in correcting matters and the courts wouldn’t get involved either. Some state in New England actually had a state house seat in a district with only 2 voters!
This was, however, not a state/federal question but rather due to the “political question” doctrine – courts before the two leading cases in one-man-one-vote had hed that it was the business of the legislature to redistrict, not a concern for the courts. The fact that an underrepresented majority could not force a legislature tilted against them to redistrict against its will was what finally moved the courts to intervene.
As for the OP, the SCoIN did not “overturn a SCOTUS decision.” SCOTUS was asked to rule on whether the statute in question should be overturned as violative of the U.S. Constitution, nd ruled that it did not. Then SCoIN was asked if it should be overturned as violative of the Indiana State Constitution, and they agreed that it did.
There are state constitutions that specifically guarantee the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, the broad right to privacy, or equal protection as against sexual orientation, none of which are explicitly in the Federal constitution, and none of which have been recognized as rights explicitly in the federal courts. In all such cases, rulings in reliance on the U.S. Constitution will provide different results than rulings in reliance on the state constitution.
To be valid law, a state law must conform to both the standards of the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. And a federal court, even SCOTUS, will not touch a case unless there is a federal question (or in a short list of other circumstances giving federal jurisdiction). In other cases, decided under state law, the state’s highest court has the final word on how the state’s constitution and laws are interpreted.
Do you remember anything more specific about that? :eek: It sounds like one of the rotten boroughs of Old England before the Reform Acts.