Supreme Court rules against North Carolina GOP in congressional map fight
Kaelan Deese
Video Embed
The Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed a decision by North Carolina‘s top court but rejected the so-called independent state legislature theory at issue in the case.
A group of Republican lawmakers from North Carolina argued that the theory — the idea that the Constitution’s elections clause gives state legislators nearly unfettered authority to regulate federal elections without interference from state courts — barred the state’s high court from setting aside congressional maps drawn by the state’s legislature.
UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME PAYMENTS: BIG CITIES THAT HAVE JUMPED INTO PROGRAMS TO GIVE AWAY MONEY
The 6-3 majority decision in Moore v. Harper held that the elections clause “does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”
The ruling also featured the court’s three liberal justices in the majority alongside conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas issued a dissent that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in part by Justice Samuel Alito.
“The reasoning we unanimously embraced in Smiley [v. Holm] commands our continued respect,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “A state legislature may not ‘create congressional districts independently of’ requirements imposed ‘by the state constitution with respect to the enactment of laws.'”
In April, the recently formed conservative majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling done under a Democratic-majority that disallowed partisan gerrymandering, allowing Republicans in the state to redraw the state’s congressional lines in a way that heavily favored the GOP.
That decision threw into question the status of a case at the U.S. Supreme Court and whether that court’s 6-3 Republican-appointed majority will rule on a contentious ISL theory.
The independent state legislature argument found its basis by citing language in the Constitution that says election rules “shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
Proponents of the theory, which has never been embraced by the Supreme Court, argued that it supports the notion that legislatures have ultimate power under state law when it comes to setting election rules.
North Carolina GOP lawmakers had urged the Supreme Court to still reach a ruling on the merits of the theory despite the previous state Supreme Court reversal.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration along with three groups opposing the independent state legislature theory told the court that the case should be considered moot.
Elias Law Group Partner Abha Khanna, counsel of record for the Harper plaintiffs n the Moore case, called the decision a “resounding victory for free and fair elections.”
“The independent state legislature theory is a dangerous, fringe legal theory that has no place in our democracy. In its most extreme form, the Independent State Legislature Theory could have weakened the foundation of our democracy,” Khanna said, adding “We are incredibly relieved” by the decision.
Had the Supreme Court embraced the theory, it would have impacted not only redistricting disputes but also would have altered other election-related rules on matters such as access to the polls and mail-in voting.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The decision marked another surprise at the high court on election-related disputes after court watchers theorized the Republican-appointed majority could be poised to side with the state lawmakers.
Earlier this month, the justices held that Alabama discriminated against black voters during its redistricting process last year when it failed to create a second majority-black district.