The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on June 27 against North Carolina Republicans who argued that state legislatures have sweeping authority to make the rules for federal elections in the states without interference from the courts.
At issue is the once-obscure independent state legislature doctrine, under which Republicans argue that the Constitution has always directly authorized state legislatures alone to make rules for conducting federal elections in their respective states.
Democrats say it’s is a fringe conservative legal theory that could endanger voting rights, enable extreme partisan gerrymandering in the redistricting process, and cause upheaval in election administration.
Conservatives point to two key clauses in the U.S. Constitution that lay out the rules governing federal elections in the states.
The elections clause in Article 1 states, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
The presidential electors clause in Article 2 gives each state the power to appoint presidential electors “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.”
But the high court rejected the doctrine, finding that the elections clause doesn’t vest exclusive, independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.
All three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—also joined the opinion.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined in full and Justice Samuel Alito joined in part.
The decision came after North Carolina Republicans told the nation’s highest court during oral arguments on Dec. 7, 2022, that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures an exclusive role to make the rules for presidential and congressional elections without interference from the courts.
When he launched the appeal, petitioner Tim Moore, a Republican and speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, said the Constitution is “crystal clear: State legislatures are responsible for drawing congressional maps, not state court judges and certainly not with the aid of partisan political operatives.”
But while the justices in Washington were deliberating Moore v. Harper, on Feb. 3, the formerly Democrat-dominated Supreme Court of North Carolina, with a newly seated Republican majority, decided to rehear the underlying case, known in that forum as Harper v. Hall.
That court then reversed its prior ruling and held on April 28 that the General Assembly—not judges—has sole authority over the redistricting process. The state court’s majority opinion states that there’s “no judicially manageable standard by which to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims” and that courts “are not intended to meddle in policy matters.”
In light of the state court ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court asked lawyers for the parties to file supplemental briefs advising the justices on how to proceed. Moore’s side urged the court to move forward and issue an opinion, while the Biden administration advised it to dismiss the case as moot.
Roberts wrote in the new majority opinion that “state courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause.”
“But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review,” the chief justice wrote.
“In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures” by the Elections Clause, which “does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”
Thomas wrote that he would have dismissed the case as “indisputably moot.”
“[The court] ‘affirms’ an interlocutory state-court judgment that has since been overruled and supplanted by a final judgment resolving all claims in petitioners’ favor. The issue on which it opines—a federal defense to claims already dismissed on other grounds—can no longer affect the judgment in this litigation in any way. As such, the question is indisputably moot, and today’s majority opinion is plainly advisory,” he wrote.
“[The majority] asserts jurisdiction to decide this free-floating defense that affects no live claim for relief, reasoning that a justiciable case or controversy exists as long as its opinion can in any way ‘alter the presently operative statutes of’ a state.
“By its own lights, the majority is acting not as a court organized under Article 3 of the Constitution but as an ad hoc branch of a state legislature. That is emphatically not our job.
“In short, this case is over, and petitioners won.”
Conservatives were disappointed with the new court decision.
“Today’s decision reduces the power of the people to set their own election rules,” said attorney J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a good-government group that focuses on election integrity.
“The state legislatures are closest to the people, and they should determine how congressional lines are drawn, not state court judges. Our elections are best run with power kept closest to the people.”
Adams was also a former civil rights attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice.
Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky said the court was wrong to dismiss the challenge filed by North Carolina lawmakers.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling allows partisan state supreme courts to reject congressional redistricting plans drafted by state legislatures and other procedures for federal elections that legislatures have implemented,” Von Spakovsky said in a statement.
“Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, such congressional redistricting plans, as well as other ‘Times, Places and Manner’ procedures for federal elections, can be altered or overridden by Congress. State legislatures are subject to other federal laws such as the Voting Rights Act that are implemented to enforce provisions of the Constitution such as the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
“The Supreme Court erred by holding that state courts have the authority to draw up boundaries for congressional districts or change election procedures for federal elections—essentially replacing elected representatives.
“Worse, the decision is based on nebulous arguments that election maps and procedures violate state constitutional provisions, when those provisions are vague and allow legislatures considerable leeway.
“While the Supreme Court said that such decisions by state courts remain subject to federal court review, as Justice Clarence Thomas predicts in his dissent, this decision will lead to chaos and confusion and will swell federal courts with ‘quickly evolving, politically charged controversies’ and federal election disputes.”
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, said, “The Left will cheer today’s ruling in Moore v. Harper, but this is no victory.
“For the first time, the Supreme Court has ruled definitively that there is a limit to the power of state courts to interpret election law. In fact, the majority stated conclusively that judges may not seize for themselves the power to make laws, something which partisan anti-democracy lawyers like Marc Elias ask them to do routinely.”
Elias is an influential left-leaning election litigator who used to represent the Democratic National Committee.
Elias didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
“Today’s ruling keeps alive the Left-wing drive to abuse the courts for partisan gain, but it is no blank check for judges to embrace Marc Elias’ fringe and novel legal theories in order to skew the rules of democracy in favor of the Left,” Snead said.
“Americans hoping for a clear ruling that would reduce disruptive litigation ahead of the next election will be disappointed. But in the final analysis, Moore v. Harper may wind up being a crucial buffer against the Left’s endless campaign to get courts to rewrite election laws for partisan gain.”
White House principal deputy press secretary Olivia Dalton applauded the new ruling during the daily briefing at the White House.
“We’re pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the extreme legal theory presented in this case, which would have interfered with state governments [and] which would have opened the door for politicians to undermine people—and would have threatened the freedom of all Americans to have their voices heard at the ballot box,” Dalton said.
Vice President Kamala Harris also hailed the court decision.
“Voting is the bedrock of our democracy. Today’s decision preserves state courts’ critical role in safeguarding elections and protecting the voice and the will of the American people,” Harris said in a statement.
“We know that more work must to [sic] be done to protect the fundamental right to vote and to draw fair maps that reflect the diversity of our communities and our nation.”
