WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday shot down a conservative theory that could have 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.
“Since early in our nation’s history, courts have recognized their duty to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
The appeal took on added significance because of the 2020 election, during which several courts ruled on absentee ballot procedures amid 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.
The decision Tuesday drew praise from voting rights groups and some prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, who called it a “resounding rejection of the far-right theory that has been peddled by election deniers and extremists seeking to undermine our democracy.”
What’s the ‘independent state legislature’ theory? What did the court rule?
- North Carolina relied on a clause in the Constitution that delegates responsibility for federal elections to the “legislature” of each state. The state lawmakers said a plain reading of that clause 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.
- But state courts, Roberts wrote, “retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause.”
- The decision was 6-3 with the court’s three-justice liberal wing joining Roberts along with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Sam Alito dissented.
- Thomas, writing in dissent, asserted the Supreme Court should have dismissed the case rather than deciding it. That’s because the state courts that considered the case took the unusual step of reversing an earlier decision after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Why the ‘independent state legislature’ matters for elections
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.
A Supreme Court decision embracing the independent state legislature theory 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.
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.
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.
What are they saying about the Supreme Court’s election decision?
Voting rights groups applauded the decision. Ari Savitzky, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said the court was “right to reject the misbegotten independent state legislature theory.” In the United States, he said, “there is no room for a rogue legislature that can violate its own founding charter without any checks from other branches of government.”
Others focused on the fact that Roberts noted state courts shouldn’t have “free rein” to change election rules. And the decision, some experts said, appeared to leave room for additional litigation.
“The Supreme Court reaffirmed that state courts do not have carte blanche to rewrite state election laws,” said Jonathan Adler, professor at Case Western Reserve School of Law. “While the court did not give lots of guidance on the precise limits, the opinion serves as a warning to partisan activists inclined to use lawsuits as an effort to circumvent applicable election laws or rewrite districts.”
