Global Courant
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a strong rejection of a controversial legal theory that threatened to upend national election laws across the country and give state legislators unchecked power over federal election rules in the case of Moore v. Harper.
In a 6-3 decisionwritten by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court sided with a group of North Carolina voters challenging an attempt by Republican lawmakers to sidestep a state court decision that struck down a new gerrymandered election card.
Roberts was joined by judges Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
At the heart of the case was a fringe legal concept called the “independent state legislature” theory, which claims that the Electoral Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives only state legislatures the power to govern federal elections, unencumbered by traditional oversight of state constitutions, courts and governors.
Election and democracy experts warned that the theory, if adopted in its most extreme application, could have a dramatic impact on how elections are conducted. State legislators would have nearly unfettered power to rewrite voting rules, which could jeopardize mail-in voting, same-day voter registration, ranked-choice voting systems and other statutes for federal races, experts previously told ABC News. They were also concerned that partisan gerrymandering would greatly increase if the theory was embraced.
Challengers said the theory would have unleashed a dangerous and unprecedented plan on the eve of the 2024 presidential election.
Roberts flatly rejected the theory, stating that the election clause “does not isolate the state legislature from the ordinary exercise of judicial review by the state.”
“In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the limits of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally infringe upon the role specifically reserved for the state legislature by Article I, Section 4, of the federal constitution,” wrote Roberts.
The U.S. Supreme Court can be seen in Washington, D.C., on April 23, 2023.
Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images, FILE
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito disagreed.
The judges argued that the case should have been dismissed given the developments at the state level. The North Carolina Supreme Court, under a new Republican majority, in April reversed its earlier ruling that the gerrymandered cards were illegal.
“This is a clear case of doubt,” wrote Thomas. “The federal defense is no longer making any difference in this case — whether we agree with the defense, disagree, or say nothing at all, the final verdict in this lawsuit will be exactly the same.”
Abha Khanna, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the case, hailed the ruling as “a resounding victory for free and fair elections in the United States”.
“The independent state legislature theory is a dangerous, peripheral legal theory that has no place in our democracy. In its most extreme form, the independent state legislature theory could have weakened the foundations of our democracy, take away crucial scrutiny from the state legislature and it is easier for rogue legislators to enact policies that suppress voters and undermine elections without adequate oversight from the state court,” Khanna said in a statement. “We are incredibly relieved that the Supreme Court has decisively rejected this dangerous theory.”
Voting rights advocates also praised the decision as an important safeguard for voters. Former Attorney General Eric Holder described the decision as a victory “for our system of checks and balances, the cornerstone of American democracy.”
North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore, who led North Carolina Republicans in the case, responded to the court’s decision in a statement shared with ABC News.
“Today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that state courts may rule on state laws, even if it affects federal election law,” he said. “Ultimately, the issue of the role of state courts in congressional redistribution needed to be resolved and this decision accomplished just that. I am proud of the work we have done to bring this case to the nation’s highest court. “
Moore continued, “Fortunately, the current North Carolina Supreme Court has righted a bad precedent set by the previous majority, reaffirming the constitutional authority of the NC General Assembly. We will continue with the redistricting process later this year.”
