WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday shot down a conservative theory that would given state lawmakers extraordinary power to set election rules in their states with little oversight from courts, balking at an idea that voting rights groups worried could further erode trust in the nation’s elections system.
Republican lawmakers in North Carolina claimed a clause in the Constitution gave legislatures exclusive power to set election rules, without oversight from courts. But Chief Justice John Roberts wrote Tuesday for a 6-3 majority that the clause doesn’t preclude state courts from reviewing those laws.
“Since early in our nation’s history, courts have recognized their duty to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts,” Roberts wrote. “State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause.”
The appeal took on added significance because of the 2020 election, during which several courts ruled on absentee ballot procedures amid the lockdowns in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans felt that, in some of those cases, courts had overstepped their authority. Democrats, on the other hand, had framed those same decisions as protecting voters from disenfranchisement.
What’s the ‘independent state legislature’ theory? Does it matter?
- After the 2020 census, North Carolina approved a congressional map that would have benefited Republican candidates. A group of voters sued in state court, alleging the map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution. State courts initially agreed and ordered a new set of maps.
- On appeal, the state relied on a clause in the Constitution that delegates responsibility for federal elections to the “legislature” of each state. The state lawmakers say a plain reading of the Constitution makes clear that state legislatures have power to set election rules without interference from state courts. That’s what’s known as the “independent state legislature” doctrine. Opponents say the clause has never been read that way before.
- A Supreme Court decision could have had sweeping implications for other election laws, regulations and maps by making them far more difficult to challenge in court. Some experts believe that could have lead to more election laws that benefit the party that controls the legislature, potentially undermining support in elections.
How did the case arrive at the Supreme Court ?
During oral arguments in December, the court’s conservative majority seemed divided over the broadest reading of the independent state legislature theory. Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to be searching for a limited resolution to the case and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked difficult questions of both sides.
The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson were skeptical. “This is a theory with big consequences,” Kagan said. “This is a proposal that gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country.”
Case tracker:Race, religion and debt: Here are the biggest cases pending at the Supreme Court
In an unusual series of events, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted a rehearing of its decision over the state’s map after the Supreme Court held arguments in the case. The state court, now controlled by Republican appointees, reversed the earlier decision on the maps that was handed down when the court had leaned Democratic. The new decision raised questions about whether the U.S. Supreme Court still had an active case to decide.
The Biden administration argued that the U.S. Supreme Court no longer had jurisdiction to consider the case. The GOP state lawmakers who sued disagreed.
Though it also involved redistricting, the North Carolina dispute was entirely different from the issues involved in a case out of Alabama decided this month. In the Alabama redistricting matter, a 5-4 majority held that the state’s effort to create a “color blind” map nevertheless diluted the power of Black voters in the state.
