The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that state legislatures do not have sole discretion in setting the rules for federal elections, dismissing the plaintiffs’ argument that questions surrounding partisan gerrymandering are outside the reach of North Carolina courts.
“The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented
The case centered on the “independent state legislature” theory, which holds that state legislators have the power under the U.S. Constitution to regulate state elections with little to no interference from state courts. The theory is based on the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which says that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” It is also based on the Electors Clause of the Constitution.
In this case, the state of North Carolina was sued over a congressional map drawn in 2021 by the legislature, which likely would have given Republicans ten of the state’s 14 congressional seats. The challengers asserted the map was an extreme partisan gerrymander and claimed it violated the state’s constitution. In February of last year, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the challengers by a vote of 4-3, striking down the map for last year’s midterm elections and adopting a new map drawn by three court-appointed experts.
Republican legislators led by Speaker Timothy Moore of the North Carolina house appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to intervene in the case before the 2022 midterms, with Republicans and Democrats winning seven seats each. However, the high court decided in June it would hear oral arguments in the case.
Moore argued that the text of the Constitution only mentions the state legislatures for a reason, explaining the drafters could have included a role for other entities if they wanted. On the other hand, Rebecca Harper and others who challenged North Carolina’s congressional map in state court argued that the legislature’s theory was “extreme” and that lawmakers should not be “immune from judicial review.”
In late April, the North Carolina Supreme Court justices overruled their 2022 decision — Harper v. Hall — that struck down the original map. Two new justices had joined the court, flipping the balance of power to a majority of Republican-appointed justices.
"There is no judicially manageable standard by which to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims. Courts are not intended to meddle in policy matters," wrote Chief Justice Paul Newby for the five-justice majority. "In its decision today, the Court returns to its tradition of honoring the constitutional roles assigned to each branch."
At that point, the U.S. Supreme Court sought clarification from the parties in Moore v. Harper as to whether the case was moot, but received conflicting answers.
Comments
Post a Comment