The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a North Carolina case involving rigging, electoral districts and a little-known theory called the independent state legislature doctrine, next October.
If the court rules in North Carolina’s favor, the ruling would reduce voter control over state legislatures and likely affect the outcome of various political races in the state — as well as the 2024 presidential election.
The facts of Moore v. Harper
Moore v. Harper centers around congressional maps drawn by Republican lawmakers in North Carolina after the 2020 census. The maps were challenged in court by Democratic voters and nonprofits who argued that districts were unfairly rigged in favor of the Republicans, which is in violation of the state constitution.
Earlier this year, the North Carolina Supreme Court blocked the state from using the maps in primaries and required the districts to be redrawn.
“Today we answer this question: Does our state constitution recognize that the people of this state have the power to elect those who govern us, giving each of us an equally powerful voice through our vote?” Or our Constitution gives the members of the General Assembly, as they claim here, unlimited power to draw electoral maps that keep them and our members of Congress in office as long as they wish, regardless of the will of the people, by making some votes more powerful than others?” Justice Robin Hudson wrote in the state Supreme Court’s majority opinion blocking the use of the fake cards. “We hold that the Bill of Rights of our Constitution guarantees the equal power of each person’s voice in our government by voting in elections that matter.”
Republican state lawmakers asked in February in an emergency appeal that the United States Supreme Court halt the state’s order to redraw the maps, though the request was denied.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented. In their dissent, the justices wrote that the doctrine of independent state legislatures was an important question for the court to resolve.
The new maps, drawn by experts appointed by the North Carolina Supreme Court, were used in the state’s May 17 primary election.
In another appeal to overturn the state Supreme Court’s ruling, North Carolina House Speaker Timothy K. Moore filed for a writ of certiorari — a request that the United States Supreme Court review the case.
The review was granted on June 30, with the case due to be heard at the Supreme Court this October.
Doctrine of the Legislature of the Independent State
At the heart of the case, according to the SCOTUS blog, is a legal theory called the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which holds that under the Constitution’s election clause, “only the legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts.” .”
“The theory would prevent state courts from protecting the right to vote in federal elections by eliminating state constitutional protections in those elections,” legal experts Leah Litman, Kate Shaw and Carolyn Shapiro wrote on the case in an opinion for The Washington Post. “And it will do so at a time when the right to vote is under attack, including at the Supreme Court itself.”
Under the doctrine’s strictest readings, provisions in state constitutions that prevent legislators from influencing elections would be struck down. The governor, who normally could veto new election laws, would lose the ability to do so, and state courts would not be able to strike down anti-democratic laws or challenge gerrymandered districts.
That interpretation of the constitution “could make it easier for state legislatures to suppress voting, draw unfair electoral districts, allow partisan interference in the counting of ballots,” the Brennan Center for Justice tweeted about the case.
Conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have endorsed versions of the legal theory in previous court opinions. Their support signals that they will vote in this case to overturn previous legal precedent that deemed such cases highly partisan and thus “unfair” and prevented the nation’s highest court from ruling on partisan state issues. including fraudulent election cards.
The Court’s pending decision could undo anti-fraud efforts in battleground states across the country and give state legislatures unfettered control over how federal elections are conducted.
“This case has the potential to fundamentally reshape the relationship between state legislatures and state courts in the protection of voting rights in federal elections,” election law expert Richard Hassen wrote on his election law blog. “It can also provide the avenue for election subversion.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case a “judicial coup in progress.”
“If the President and Congress don’t constrain the Court now, the Court is signaling that it will come next presidential election,” the New York Democrat tweeted. “All our leaders – regardless of party – must recognize this constitutional crisis for what it is.”
Add Comment