The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear Moore’s case against Harper, a North Carolina case involving gerrymandering, voting districts, and a little-known theory called the doctrine of the independent state legislature, this coming October.
If the Court rules in favor of North Carolina, the ruling would reduce voter oversight in state legislatures and likely affect the outcome of several statewide political races, as well as the 2024 presidential election.
Moore’s facts against Harper
Moore v. Harper focuses on 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 manipulated in favor. of the Republicans, which violated the state constitution.
Earlier this year, the North Carolina Supreme Court blocked the state from using the maps in the primary election and demanded that the districts be redrawn.
“Today, we answer this question: does our state constitution recognize that the people of this state have the power to choose those who govern us, giving each of us an equally powerful voice through our vote? Or our constitution gives members of the General Assembly, as they argue here, unlimited power to draw electoral maps that keep themselves and our members of Congress in office as long as they want, regardless of the will of the people, making them are some votes more powerful than others? ” Judge Robin Hudson wrote in the majority opinion of the state Supreme Court, which blocked the use of gerrymandered maps. “We believe that the Bill of Rights in our Constitution guarantees the equal power of voice of every person in our government by voting in elections that matter.”
Republican state lawmakers called in February on an emergency appeal for the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the state’s order to redraw the maps, though the request was denied.
Judges Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the denial. In their dissent, the judges wrote that the doctrine of the independent state legislature was an important issue for the court to resolve.
The new maps, drawn by experts appointed by the North Carolina Supreme Court, were used in the May 17 state primary election.
In another appeal to overturn the decision of the state Supreme Court, Timothy K. Moore, the president of the North Carolina House of Representatives, filed a writ of certainty, a request that the U.S. Supreme Court review case.
The review was granted on June 30 and the case will be known at the Supreme Court session this October.
Doctrine of the Legislature of the Independent State
At the heart of the case, according to the SCOTUS bloc, is the legal theory called the “doctrine of the independent state legislature,” which suggests that, according to the electoral clause of the Constitution, “only the legislature has the power to regulate federal elections.” without state interference. courts “.
“The theory would prevent state courts from protecting voting rights in federal elections by removing state constitutional protections in those elections,” legal experts Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Carolyn Shapiro wrote about the case in an opinion piece by and The Washington Post. “And it would do so at a time when voting rights are under attack, including in the Supreme Court itself.”
Under the strictest readings of the doctrine, the provisions of state constitutions that prevent legislators from influencing elections would be revoked. The governor, who could normally veto new election laws, would lose the ability to do so and state courts could not reverse anti-democratic laws or challenge gerrymandered districts.
This interpretation of the constitution “could make it easier for state legislatures to suppress voting, draw unfair constituencies, allow partisan interference in the counting of ballots,” the Brennan Justice Center tweeted about the case.
Conservative Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have supported versions of legal theory in previous court opinions. Their support indicates that they will vote in this case to overturn legal precedents that considered these cases very partisan and therefore “unjustifiable” and prevented the country’s highest court from ruling on partisan state issues, such as the gerrymandered election maps.
The Court’s upcoming decision could push back efforts to combat gerrymandering in battlefield states across the country and give state legislatures unlimited control over how federal elections are conducted.
“This case has the potential to fundamentally rework the relationship between state legislatures and state courts to protect voting rights in federal elections,” election law expert Richard Hasen wrote in his election bill. “It could also provide the path for electoral subversion.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described the Supreme Court’s decision to understand the case as “an ongoing judicial coup.”
“If the president and Congress don’t stop the Court now, the Court is indicating that the next presidential election will come,” the New York Democrat tweeted. “All our leaders, regardless of the party, must recognize this constitutional crisis for what it is.”