The Supreme Court declined to take on a significant election law case from Montana, which involved a contentious legal concept that could impact elections nationwide.

On Tuesday, the Court issued a brief order without elaborating on its decision, a common practice for the justices.
Montana was contesting a ruling that invalidated two election laws backed by Republicans. The state leaned on the independent state legislature theory, which argues that state judges should not have the authority to adjudicate election-related cases at all.

Republican Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen asserted that the U.S. Constitution grants lawmakers sole authority over state elections.

She sought the Supreme Court’s review after the state’s top court annulled laws that abolished same-day voter registration and restricted paid ballot collection efforts.
In contrast, the Montana Democratic Party, alongside tribal groups and organizations for youth, argued that these laws would create obstacles for certain demographics, including Native Americans, first-time voters, senior citizens, and individuals with disabilities.

Judicial rulings indicated that the rejected laws were in violation of voters’ rights as outlined by the state constitution.

In a previous case, known as Moore v. Harper from North Carolina, the Supreme Court largely dismissed the independent state legislature theory.
That case revolved around the legal premise that electoral district maps are immune to court challenges.

Nevertheless, the opinion hinted at the possibility of future legal disputes by suggesting that there may be constraints on how state courts oversee electoral processes.