The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a case that could dramatically change the way congressional and presidential elections are conducted, giving more power to state legislatures and blocking state courts from hearing challenges to procedures and results.
The justices will consider whether state courts, when they find violations of their state constitutions, can order changes to federal elections and the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional districts. The case is likely to be discussed in the fall.
“This case could profoundly change the balance of power in the states and prevent state courts and agencies from providing protection of people’s voting rights,” said Rick Hayson, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. “There is a wide range of ways in which the court can rule on this issue. Taken to the extreme, this would be a radical overhaul of our electoral system. “
In the most extreme example, lawyers said, if the Supreme Court rules that no entity but state legislatures can set rules about federal elections, it could prevent a governor from vetoing election bills or a state court from blocking rules , which establish different voting hours in urban and rural areas.
Jason Torchinski, a Republican lawyer who wrote a legal brief urging the high court to take up the case, said it was absurd to think the Supreme Court would ultimately allow it. He noted that as recently as 2015, the court agreed that legislatures do not have absolute power in elections, ruling that Arizona’s voter-approved redistricting commission can legally strip lawmakers of their power to draw district lines.
“I don’t think you can take the theory that ‘only legislatures can do whatever they want,'” Torchinski said. “The problem is we have these rogue state courts.”
The case, appealed by North Carolina Republicans, challenges a state court ruling that threw out congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly that would have made GOP candidates likely winners in 10 of the state’s 14 congressional districts.
The Supreme Court has never referred to what is known as the doctrine of the independent state legislature, but four of the conservative judges in the court have expressed interest in addressing the issue. One of them, Judge Clarence Thomas, was among three judges who nominated him in the Bush case against Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election.
It takes only four of the nine judges to agree to a trial. A majority of five is required for a possible decision.
The issue has repeatedly arisen in North Carolina and Pennsylvania cases where Democratic majorities in state supreme courts have invoked protections in state constitutions to thwart plans by Republican-dominated legislatures.
The case comes as state courts become increasingly involved in redistributing the area, as a result of a 2019 ruling in which the Supreme Court said federal courts could no longer hear claims for illegal guerrilla fraud.
Initially, in cases in states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, it hurt Republicans and helped Democrats. But courts in Democratic-dominated states including Maryland and New York then threw out the maps as Democratic riggers, leaving Republicans with a slight edge at the end of the once-a-decade congressional redistricting process.
The Supreme Court already has another important case to redirect the region to its autumn to-do list, reviewing the way the Voting Rights Act requires the establishment of majority minority constituencies to ensure that marginalized groups have a chance. to choose their preferred representatives.
But the North Carolina case has implications far beyond redistricting. The independent state legislature doctrine can also hold that state courts cannot stop legislatures from imposing any restrictions they want on congressional voting or even the choice of electors who choose the president of the United States.
North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore, who appealed to the Supreme Court, cheered the news that the case would be heard. “This case is not only crucial to the integrity of the North Carolina election, but has implications for the security of the nationwide election,” Moore, a Republican, said in a statement.
Voting groups were furious.
“In a radical seizure of power, self-serving politicians want to oppose our state’s highest court and impose illegal constituencies on the people of North Carolina,” said Bob Phillips of the Common Cause, North Carolina, who filed a lawsuit that overturned GOP-drawn maps. “We will continue to stand up for the people of our country and nation as long as this case goes to the US Supreme Court. We must stop this dangerous attack on our freedom to vote. “
___
Associated Press writer Gary Robertson of Raleigh, North Carolina, contributed to the report.
Add Comment