The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday against Republicans in North Carolina, saying state legislators do not have the sole power to set the rules of federal elections without the intervention of state judges.
The judgment of 6-3 is Moore vs. HarperThe document, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., rejected the Republican argument that the state legislature alone makes the rules.
“When state legislatures prescribe rules for federal elections, they remain subject to the normal exercise of state judicial review,” he wrote. “State courts retain the power to apply state constitutional restrictions when the legislature acts on the powers conferred by the election clause.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Justices Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
The decision will make it harder for major political parties to gerrymander voting maps in constituencies to gain control of the majority of seats.
Democrats and many public interest activists believe that even if the Democratic candidate wins more votes, conservative courts will support the Republican legislators and voter will by choosing Republican electoral rolls in the 2024 presidential election. I was worried that I might be able to rebel. state.
Disputes over state election laws are usually resolved by state judges and the state Supreme Court. Until recently, it was understood that final authority over state law rested with the state Supreme Court.
Republicans, however, argued that the U.S. Constitution provides different rules for electing federal employees. They pointed to the provision that “the time, place and manner” of electing senators and representatives “shall be prescribed by the legislature of each state.”
They cite this provision, arguing that the state Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn election rules set by state legislators. This is called the “Independent Legislature Theory”.
The Constitution has similar provisions for presidential elections. The article states that “each state appoints” electors who choose the president “as directed by Congress.”
All states have adopted laws whereby electors are chosen based on the results of a popular vote within the state.
But after Trump lost the re-election to then-candidate Joe Biden in 2020, President Trump and some of his supporters urged Republican state legislators to defy the law and elect Trump instead of Biden. urged to appoint a person. But no one did.
Democrats and many election law experts believe that if the Supreme Court upholds the Republican claim that state legislatures have “independent” authority over elections, Republican lawmakers will lose even if the Democratic nominee wins in a close race. He expressed concern that he might elect Republican electoral rolls.
The issue was brought to the Supreme Court last year in a dispute over partisan gerrymandering by Republican state legislators in North Carolina. They drew up a voting map that clearly favored Republicans in 10 of the state’s 14 constituencies in the U.S. House of Representatives election.
Common cause of allegations He argued that the map was highly partisan and did not fairly reflect the views of state voters. They won the state Supreme Court, at which point the Democratic nominees had a 4-3 majority. The judges said the state constitution promises free and fair elections and ordered a new map to be drawn for the 2022 midterm elections. Under that map, the state elected seven Republicans and seven Democrats to the House of Representatives.
But the state’s Republican leaders appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that state judges do not have the power to impose their own map on the election of Congress in defiance of Congress.
The High Court agreed to hear their appeals, but the judges appeared to be very divided when they heard arguments in December.
But the month before, Republicans won two seats on the state Supreme Court, with a 5-2 majority. Shortly after, the new majority announced it would reconsider the anti-gerrymandering ruling that infuriated Republican lawmakers.
On April 28, a state court reversed the earlier ruling, saying state legislators were completely free to draw districts to favor their party. The vote was 5 to 2.
