I’m glad this matter is settled for now, but I guess that doesn’t stop the voting shenanigans going on in Texas with the new law aimed at just the Houston area where if the Republicans in the legislature don’t like the way Houston conducted its voting, the TX Secretary of State can take over election supervision. In just Harris County, ie Houston, ie a Dem-leaning county.
IUIC, the TL/DR of it is legislatures can’t just run the election at will as they go along with whatever they pull out of their asses today; they have to legislate it with the normal exposure to vetoes (in such states as a veto is worth anything) and challenges and suits in state and federal courts.
But, but…who will think of poor John Eastman? 
I’m not well versed on this subject, but it looks like that part of the ruling is simply that the federal supreme court can Trump the state supreme court. So whether this is a good or bad thing hinges on whether the federal court or the state court is more likely to make egregiously undemocratic decisions. While in the Bush v. Gore decision the federal court was more undemocratic, I’m not sure that this in general will be the case. As unbalanced as they are the federal supreme court has been willing to make some decisions (like this one) that favor democracy over the Republican party. I’m not sure that say the Texas supreme court would be so willing. So all things considered this might be for the best.
ETA: This post appears to be responding to Aspenglow but that isn’t the actual post I meant to respond to. If anyone know how to change this in edit I’d appreciate them letting me know.
Yes, I agree.
I’ve had more time to reflect on the decision and like you, have come to the conclusion that this was, on balance, a good decision for democracy in this country. So far as I can tell, we’ve never been protected from another Bush v. Gore decision. It’s always a possibility.
Had the Court not ruled as they did, it would have been the fake electors scheme legalized. Which would have been much worse.
I don’t think there is any way to edit your post to change it from a reply to me to a reply to someone else without just doing a “never mind” in your existing post and starting again. I think you’ve made your intentions clear, though.
Yes, and I should have mentioned that Hasen didn’t seem to be using (and I wasn’t intending to use) Bush v. Gore as a pejorative here, simply as being descriptive of “federal judiciary overrides state bodies”.
As you say, doing so could be good or bad. Certainly historically, the federal government interventions into how voting is conducted in the states have been pro-democratic, though as Charlie Pierce is fond of pointing out, both Rehnquist and Roberts made their start as Republican operatives doing voter suppression.
Agreed. On the federal level, it’s a constant back and forth between the right and left.
On the state level, you have places that are firmly one side or the other, and in particular the Republican Party has transparently and deliberately put their thumb on the scale to keep it that way.
The Republicans have been attempting a “bottom-to-top” method of subverting democracy and trying to take over against the will of the people. Schemes like REDMAP have made this strategy clear. By allowing the federal government to overrule those attempts to emulate a banana republic, they can at least stop that some of the time.
I sincerely hope so. Those would be the REAL oath keepers (not capitalized, so as to distinguish them from the ones whose commitment to their oaths is so shaky that they feel it necessary to take the descriptor on as a title, lest people get confused).