> The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws. That's a bold statement

> The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws. That's a bold statement. Based on their decisions over the past several months, and especially some of the most recent ones, I don't think your presumptions are true. I think most if not all of the conservative justices (I'd have to confirm precisely where Roberts sits) have expressed their opinion that in Federal elections Federal courts have a unique role in interpreting state law legislation. And that's exactly why many of the recent filings, including this most recent one (Texas v. Pennsylvania), complained about state courts modifying legislative rules in seeming contravention of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. I think it's a nuts interpretation that shows how facile the neo-textualist approach has become. But in any event you might want to revisit your assumptions about what the law is or will become in terms of applying traditional separation of powers principles and precedent in the area of election law. I'm also comfortable putting down some money that with Barrett on the court there's a greater-than-even chance that SCOTUS will invalidate state constitutional amendments that move redistricting to independent bodies. The last time it came up it was only saved by Kennedy, IIRC. Even if Roberts decides to adhere to precedent (notwithstanding that he ignored it the first time around), his vote won't be enough to save independent redistricting. But I'm not even sure Roberts would try because, IIRC, he seemed to drop some hints in one of his recent opinions as a swing voter that he'll get his pound of flesh on the next redistricting case--that is, to vindicate Federalist Society arguments about Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1, a sister to 2.1.2 that uses the same wording regarding legislatures and the manner of Federal elections. EDIT: Fixed last sentence to refer to 1.4.1 instead of 2.1.2. EDIT: s/2.1.1/2.1.2/