The Supreme Court said Thursday it would consider a radical change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures the exclusive power to set the rules for contests, even if their actions violated state constitutions and led to extreme partisan attacks on congressional seats. The court will next hear a case from North Carolina in which Republicans want to restore a restructuring plan drawn up by the GOP-led legislature but rejected as a violation of the state constitution by the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in March upheld the North Carolina Supreme Court ruling for the upcoming fall election. However, three of the court’s conservative judges at the time said they were skeptical state courts had a role in arbitrating federal election rules, and a quarter said the matter was ripe for consideration. Supreme Court rejects GOP request to overturn congressional maps in NC, Pennsylvania State courts have played a major role in congressional redistribution battles since the 2020 Census. York and Maryland. But trying to get the Supreme Court to look at what is called the doctrine of an independent legislature was an effort led by Republicans. The GOP oversees both legislatures in 30 states. The doctrine stems from the US Constitution Electoral Clause, which states that “The Hours, Places and Manner of Elections for Senators and Representatives will be determined in each State by the Legislature.” Although more frequently invoked in the redistribution process, the doctrine of independent state legislature would also give legislators control over issues such as voter qualifications, postal voting, and other electoral processes. In the past, this has been widely interpreted as giving states that power, but in a common way between the people and the executive, legislature and judiciary. In the electoral controversy that led to the 2020 presidential election, Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh voiced their support for the view that state courts could not usurp the role of legislator. in prescribing rules for federal elections. In March, Alito said he would block the North Carolina court from approving the new congressional charter and that he believed the legislature had the best argument. “If the language of the election clause is to be taken seriously, it must exist some “limiting the power of state courts to offset the actions taken by state legislatures when setting rules for federal elections,” Alito wrote, along with Thomas and Gorsuch. “I think it is likely that the applicants will be able to show that the North Carolina Supreme Court has exceeded these limits.” Cavanaugh did not agree to block the state lawsuit, saying it was too close to the election. However, he said the issue should be considered next term. In a 2019 ruling, all members of the court – including Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh – seemed to envision a role for state courts. Rejecting the role of federal courts in settling partisan lawsuits, Justice John G. Roberts Jr. clarified that the challenges could go through state courts. “Provisions in state statutes and constitutions can provide standards and guidance to the state courts they must apply” in policing party manipulations, Roberts wrote for the majority in Rucho vs. Common Cause. In 2015, the court ruled that the constitutional election clause did not prohibit Arizona voters from giving an independent committee, instead of the legislature, the power to draft congressional districts. “Nothing in this clause guides, nor has this court ever ruled, that a state legislature may lay down rules for the time, place and manner of federal elections in violation of the provisions of the state constitution,” he wrote. Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the five. majority of members in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistribution Commission. Liberal Ginsburg died in 2020 and was replaced by Conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is likely to be decisive in the outcome of the new challenge. North Carolina is a purple state, with a Republican-controlled legislature, a Democratic governor and an elected state Supreme Court with four Democrats and three Republicans. Donald Trump won the state in 2020 by a margin of 50% to 49% over Joe Biden. Analysts said the map created by Republican lawmakers after the 2020 Census would give the GOP an edge in 10 of the 14 congressional districts. Democratic judges in the state’s Supreme Court said the redistribution maps had a partisan bias “not explained by North Carolina’s political geography.” The court concluded that the charters “are unconstitutional beyond all reasonable doubt under the Free Election Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Freedom of Speech Clause and the North Carolina Constitution Assembly Freedom Clause.” Republican state legislative leaders told the Supreme Court in their petition that state courts have no power to guess the legislature. “With its simple text, the election clause creates the power to regulate the times, places and manner of the federal elections and then delegates this power to the ‘legislature’ of each State,” they wrote. “It does not leave states free to limit the constitutionally enshrined power of the legislature or to place it elsewhere in the governmental mechanism of the state, in accordance with state law.” But the state Department of Justice said North Carolina is a bad example for the Supreme Court to consider. That’s because the legislature itself has given state courts a role in restructuring, they say. “Two decades ago, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law that explicitly codifies the power of state courts to review legislative redistribution efforts,” the state said. “At the same time, the legislature specifically mandated state courts to ‘impose a temporary district plan’ in situations such as the one that led to this appeal. Therefore, the courts of the state of North Carolina did not “undertake” to set “federal electoral rules – the state legislature itself designed a redistributive legislation that explicitly provides for the participation of the courts.” The case is Moore vs. Harper. It will be heard in the term that begins in October. Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.
