US Supreme Court rejects North Carolina GOP claim that could have upended elections

Share Story

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Supreme Court, in a closely watched case with major ramifications for federal elections, ruled on Tuesday that state legislatures do not have unchecked power to decide voting laws.

In a 6-3 decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the nation’s highest court rejected the so-called “independent state legislature” theory.

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina had argued before the court in December that state legislatures should have the sole authority to decide who votes, where and how in presidential and congressional elections.

The prospect had raised concerns for democracy on the left — and to a lesser extent on the right — in a bitterly divided nation still reeling from former president Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results.

State legislatures have used their authority under the US Constitution’s Elections Clause to map congressional districts, set poll hours and agree on rules for voter registration and mail-in and absentee ballots.

They have also, at times, engaged in what is known as partisan gerrymandering — drawing up congressional districts to favor a particular political party.

Reggie Weaver, at podium, speaks outside the Legislative Building in Raleigh, North Carolina, Feb. 15, 2022, about a partisan gerrymandering ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Gary D. Robertson, File)

Their laws have been subject, however, to scrutiny by the state courts and North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers were seeking to do away with that judicial input.

The Supreme Court rejected that bid with Roberts and two other conservatives — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — siding with the three liberal justices.

“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Roberts wrote.

Obama welcomes ruling

Former Democratic president Barack Obama welcomed the decision.

“Today, the Supreme Court rejected the fringe independent state legislature theory that threatened to upend our democracy and dismantle our system of checks and balances,” Obama tweeted.

Abha Khanna, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling a “resounding victory for free and fair elections in the United States.”

“The Independent State Legislature Theory could have weakened the foundation of our democracy, removing a crucial check on state legislatures,” Khanna said in a statement.

Members of the US Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, April 23, 2021. Seated from left are Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Standing from left are Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP)

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in December, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the administration of Democratic US President Joe Biden, warned that accepting the “independent state legislature” doctrine would “wreak havoc” in the running of elections and “sow chaos on the ground.”

“State and federal elections would have to be administered under divergent rules,” Prelogar said. “And federal courts, including this court, would be flooded with new claims.”

There were also worries that a ruling in favor of the theory would allow state legislatures to override outcomes they disagreed with, as some Trump supporters had called for in the 2020 election.

The case, Moore v. Harper, stemmed from an electoral dispute in North Carolina.

The 2020 census found that the state’s population had increased, earning it an extra seat in the US House of Representatives.

North Carolina lawmakers redrew the congressional map to add a new district but the state supreme court threw it out, arguing that it favored Republicans by grouping Democrats in certain districts, diluting their vote.

North Carolina lawmakers appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that local courts were usurping their authority.

Independent journalism needs you

There’s no paywall on The Times of Israel, but the journalism we do is costly. As an independent news organization, we are in no way influenced by political or business interests. We rely on readers like you to support our fact-based coverage of Israel and the Jewish world. If you appreciate the integrity of this type of journalism, please join the ToI Community.

Join our Community

Join our Community

Already a member? Sign in to stop seeing this

You’re a dedicated reader

That’s why we started the Times of Israel eleven years ago – to provide discerning readers like you with must-read coverage of Israel and the Jewish world.

So now we have a request. Unlike other news outlets, we haven’t put up a paywall. But as the journalism we do is costly, we invite readers for whom The Times of Israel has become important to help support our work by joining The Times of Israel Community.

For as little as $6 a month you can help support our quality journalism while enjoying The Times of Israel AD-FREE, as well as accessing exclusive content available only to Times of Israel Community members.

Thank you,
David Horovitz, Founding Editor of The Times of Israel

Join Our Community

Join Our Community

Already a member? Sign in to stop seeing this

Source link


Share Article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related Posts

This is articles having same tags as the current post.

error: Content is protected !!