‘Big consequences’: Supreme Court grapples with case some warn could upend federal elections
Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with a novel legal theory that critics warn could upend federal elections but that proponents insist is needed to limit the power of state courts to overrule voting laws approved by state lawmakers.
Over the course of three hours at least three justices signaled a willingness to embrace the idea that state courts should be curtailed in their power to strike down state laws governing federal elections. But other members of the conservative majority – including Chief Justice John Roberts – seemed to be searching for a less sweeping resolution.
At the center of the litigation is North Carolina’s congressional map, which the state’s supreme court rejected earlier this year as a partisan gerrymander it said violated the state constitution. Republican lawmakers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that state courts didn’t have the power to strike down or redraw the map.
independent state legislature doctrine is based on the Constitution’s election clause, which gives legislatures the power to make laws governing congressional elections but is silent on state courts. Congress would still have oversight as would federal courts, albeit in a shrinking number of circumstances.
Explainer:Supreme Court pressed to give state legislatures more power over elections
Guide:A look at the key cases pending before the Supreme Court
Stay in the conversation on politics:Sign up for the OnPolitics newsletter
upholding an Arizona law limiting how voters may return absentee ballots.in federal court. But, Roberts wrote for the majority at the time, such lawsuits could still be filed in state courts based on state constitutions.
If the court rules for the North Carolina lawmakers in the present case, it would close that door for those challenging maps – regardless of which party drew them.
State and federal courts stepped in repeatedly during the 2020 election. At a time when the U.S. Postal Service was experiencing delays, a Pennsylvania court ruled absentee ballots could be counted even if they arrived three days after the election. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to halt the ruling. Several courts considered challenges to redrawn congressional districts in the months leading up to the November midterm.
A ruling in the case, Moore v. Harper, could limit the ability of voters, political parties and outside groups to sue over polling hours, voter ID requirements and congressional districts, for instance. A decision is expected by June.
For conservatives who embrace the doctrine, that’s not necessarily a problem. They argue that many state courts overstepped their authority in the 2020 election, changing the rules without authorization from lawmakers. Besides, they say, a plain reading of the Constitution’s election clause suggests the framers wanted legislatures in control.
Conservatives also argue that, in North Carolina’s case, the state supreme court struck down the map based on a vague provision of the state’s constitution that provides elections must be “free.” That was a concern Roberts raised during arguments Wednesday.
Kavanaugh wrote in March, “is almost certain to keep arising until the court definitively resolves it.”