Supreme Court on Tuesday Rejected a legal doctrine It would have radically reshaped how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures largely unchecked power to set the rules for federal elections and draw congressional maps marred by partisan gerrymandering.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had a 6 to 3 vote to write the majority opinion. The Constitution, he said, “does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary restraints imposed by state law.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch objected.
The decision followed other landmark rulings in the court’s three liberal majority, including the Voting Rights Act, immigration and tribal rights. The court has so far repeatedly rejected aggressive arguments from conservative prosecutors, though some big cases are still to come, possibly by the end of the week.
This case is about the doctrine of “Independent State Legislature”. It is based on a reading of the Constitution Election DivisionIt states, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by its legislature.”
Proponents of the stronger form of the doctrine say that no other organ of state government — not courts, not governors, not election administrators, not independent commissions — can supersede the legislature’s actions in federal elections.
Chief Justice Roberts rejected that position. “The Electoral Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the usual practice of state judicial review,” he wrote.
The ruling was a sweeping rejection of a doctrine that an unusually diverse group of lawyers, judges and scholars across the ideological spectrum considered radical and dangerous. They warned that adopting the doctrine could have profound consequences for nearly every aspect of federal elections, including gutting protections against partisan gerrymandering and reducing the ability to challenge voting restrictions in state courts.
But some election law experts cautioned that Tuesday’s decision would elevate the power of federal courts and allow them to second-guess at least some state court rulings based on state law.
“It gives the U.S. Supreme Court the final say on the meaning of state law in the middle of an election dispute.” Richard L. Hassanwrote a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles A blog post. “It’s a bad, but not bad, outcome.”
Others said the decision was an almost complete victory and reaffirmed the status quo. “I don’t see any evidence of the Supreme Court getting confused here,” he said Vikram David AmarDean of the University of Illinois College of Law.
As Chief Justice Roberts stated, “state courts have no independent control” and are subject to federal courts’ oversight in cases involving federal elections. But he said very little about the nature and extent of that oversight.
“The questions presented in this section are complex and context-specific,” the chief justice wrote. “We hold only that state courts may not exceed the ordinary limits of judicial review, such that they transfer to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanagh, Amy Coney Barrett and Katanji Brown Jackson joined the Chief Justice’s majority opinion.
The case has no practical impact on the dispute involving North Carolina’s congressional voting map. A recent ruling by the state Supreme Court authorized the Republican-controlled Legislature to draw the necessary maps, ensuring that the resulting districts would be shaped by politics.
The case, Moore v. Harper, no. 21-1271, about a voting map drawn by the North Carolina Legislature after the 2020 census, was initially rejected by the state’s Supreme Court as a partisan gerrymander. Although North Carolina is a politically evenly divided state, experts said the map could yield a congressional delegation of at least 10 Republicans and four or fewer Democrats.
First the state court rejected the argument Adopting the doctrine of independent state legislatures, asserting that it is not competent to review the acts of state legislatures, “is repugnant to the sovereignty of the states, the authority of state constitutions, and the independence of state courts, and is absurd and dangerous in consequence.”
Last year, Republicans seeking to restore the legislative map asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Urgent application The state court was incapacitated.
The justices rejected the request for immediate intervention, and the election in November was held under a map drawn by a state court-appointed expert. As a result, the 14-member Congressional delegation is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.
Republican lawmakers appealed to the US Supreme Court. When the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in December, the justices appeared divided, if not divided, on the limits of the doctrine.
The makeup of the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped after the election in November, favoring Republicans by a 5-to-2 margin. A dissenting justice called the new majority a “shameful manipulation of the fundamental principles of our democracy and the rule of law.” Reverse trendThat said, the Legislature is free to draw gerrymandered voting districts as it sees fit.
Many observers expected the US Supreme Court to dismiss the case in light of that development. But Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the case involved a direct controversy and that the court retained jurisdiction.
Dissenting, Justice Thomas said the case was “undeniably moot.” He said the majority’s reasoning on the merits was unconvincing and feared the ruling would invite last-minute litigation over election disputes.
“Amid the rapidly developing, politically charged controversies that arise randomly, and the winners of federal elections, it may be decided by a federal court’s swift decision that a state court has overstepped the ‘limits of ordinary judicial review’ in construing a state constitution,” he wrote. “I would hesitate before long to involve the federal judiciary on this uncertain path.”
In his opinion Tuesday, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that several of the court’s precedents are inconsistent with a broad version of the doctrine. “Each rejected the argument that the Elections Clause gives state legislatures exclusive and independent authority when setting rules governing federal elections,” he wrote.
He added, “In construing state law in this area, state courts may not overstep the bounds of ordinary judicial review to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically assigned to state legislatures by the federal constitution”.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanagh underscored this point. “A federal court’s review of a state court’s interpretation of state law in a federal election case must be deference, but deference is not abdication,” he wrote.
When the Court closed the doors of federal courts to discriminatory gerrymandering claims Rucho v. Common cause In 2019, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the court’s five most conservative members that state courts can take such cases — including against the backdrop of congressional redistricting.
As if anticipating and rejecting the doctrine of free state legislatures, he wrote, “State statutes and provisions in state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.”
In 2015, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the court ruled that Arizona’s voters had the right to make the process of drawing congressional district lines nonpartisan by creating an independent redistricting commission, though referred to as the “legislature.” Election Division.
“Nothing in that clause suggests, nor has this Court ever held, that a state legislature may prescribe regulations regarding the time, place and manner of holding federal elections in violation of the provisions of the state constitution,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. 2020, written in a majority opinion of 5 to 4 decision.
Chief Justice Roberts dissented in that ruling. On Tuesday, he wrote that the framers of the constitution state legislatures are “bound by the provisions of the documents that give them life,” meaning state constitutions that have been ratified.
Citing the records of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he added, “Legislatures, the framers recognized, ‘are mere creatures of state constitutions, and cannot be greater than their framers.'”
“Total coffee junkie. Tv ninja. Unapologetic problem solver. Beer expert.”