(Scypre.com) – On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that state judges possess the authority to supersede state legislatures concerning the implementation of federal elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, which was supported by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito joining his dissenting opinion.
Roberts emphasized that state courts retain the power to apply limitations imposed by state constitutions when legislatures act under the Elections Clause.
However, the majority opinion also asserted that federal courts must uphold their responsibility to exercise judicial review. While interpreting state law in this context, state courts must not exceed the limits of ordinary judicial review to an extent that unconstitutionally encroaches upon the specific role reserved for state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution.
The case, Moore v. Harper, centered around a constitutional dispute over a state court’s authority to regulate federal elections, particularly gerrymandered redistricting maps.
Certain state legislators sought an interpretation of the “independent state legislature” (ISL) theory, which aimed to grant them significant control over federal election regulation for the president and members of Congress.
The case reached the Supreme Court after a North Carolina state court invalidated congressional maps drawn by Republicans in November 2021.
These maps were deemed unconstitutional by the majority Democrat State Supreme Court because they appeared to provide the Republican-led legislature an advantage in the state’s 14 congressional districts. The GOP state legislature argued that utilizing court-drawn maps violated the General Assembly’s constitutional right according to the elections clause.
They asked the Supreme Court to invoke the ISL doctrine, contending that state legislatures possess unrestricted authority to determine election procedures with minimal state judicial review, as stipulated in Article I of the Constitution.
Proponents of the GOP’s stance claimed that the case could have implications for election security nationwide. If the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision were upheld, state and federal courts would gain additional authority to intervene in future election proceedings.
On the contrary, opponents of the independent state legislature doctrine argued that it was excessively broad, fearing its potential negative impact on democracy and the facilitation of further gerrymandering, especially in a political climate where voter trust is low.
Ari Savitzky, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, applauded the Supreme Court for rejecting the flawed independent state legislature theory. He asserted that our system does not allow for a rogue legislature to violate its own foundational charter without checks from other branches of government.
Derek Mueller, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law, noted that the Court’s opinion leaves unresolved questions regarding the role of state courts in election cases.
While it is evident that state courts and constitutions have a role in limiting how state legislatures establish rules for federal elections, the opinion acknowledges the unanswered questions about when state courts overstep the bounds of judicial review and assume the authority vested in state legislatures.
Thus, challenges in this regard are not entirely closed, and uncertainties persist beyond the 2024 election.
Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, commented that although the Court did not provide extensive guidance on specific limits, the opinion serves as a cautionary message to partisan activists who might employ lawsuits as a means to circumvent applicable election laws or manipulate district boundaries.