Aye, there's the rub....

In virtually EVERY other circumstance, the USSC in general has ruled that ELECTION LAW is inherently a STATE law issue. The changes in the 1964 Voting Rights Act were the first change in that interpretation. If I recall correctly (Albaby will likely be able to clarify / correct), the arguments used at that time were that restrictions imposed in the south to prevent voting were themselves an interference with the national governemnt by making it easier to prevent federal Representatives, Senators and Presidents from being selected by processes that truly represented the desires of voters, to the country's detriment.

Of course, as the conservatives on the USSC have allowed cases to reach the court stemming from the continuance of some of these 1964-era corrective plans, they have set these mechanisms aside either under the rationale of them no longer being necessary (the US is now color-blind and discrimination-free) OR by simply ruling such national rules violate the freedom of states to control their elections as called for in the Constitution.

Here's the thing with this ruling... The majority opinion QUOTES AT LENGTH prior opinions issued at the appellate court layer by current USSC Neil Gorsuch when he was SERVING on the appellate court level IN COLORADO. The opinion cited touts the importance of honoring states' rights regarding election matters. Now that EXACT issue is going to land on the Supreme Court's docket and force the court to contradict some of the other _____ it has been stating over the past 10-20 years or will require it to REJECT an opinion soundly based upon principles IDENTICAL to those it has espoused.

Here's a link to the opinion:

courts.state.co.us - Supreme Court

As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is "a state’s legitimate
interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political
process" that "permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are
constitutionally prohibited from assuming office." 495 F. App’x at 948.


WTH