The said Tuesday that the North Carolina
Supreme Court did not violate the
elections clause of the US Constitution when it invalidated the state’s 2022 congressional map, rejecting a broad version of a controversial legal Independent State Legislature theory pushed by supporters of former President
Donald Trump. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 opinion. The case had captured the nation’s attention because
Republican lawmakers in North Carolina were asking the justices to adopt a long-dormant legal theory and hold that state courts and other state entities have a limited role in reviewing
election rules established by state legislatures when it comes to federal elections. “State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause,” Roberts wrote. The court allowed that federal courts can have some role supervising state courts in certain circumstances, with Roberts writing that “state courts do not have free rein.” “Federal courts,” Roberts said, “must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review.” “When state legislatures act pursuant to their Elections Clause authority, they engage in lawmaking subject to the typical constraints on the exercise of such power,” he wrote. “In sum, our precedents have long rejected the view that legislative action under the Elections Clause is purely federal in character, governed only by restraints found in the Federal Constitution.” Roberts was joined by fellow conservatives justices
Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The decision will have ramifications for the future of elections nationwide. Former President
Barack Obama said the case had the potential to “dismantle our system of checks and balances.” “This ruling is a resounding rejection of the far-right theory that has been peddled by election deniers and extremists seeking to undermine our democracy,” Obama said in a statement. The North Carolina controversy arose after the state Supreme Court struck down the state’s 2022 congressional map as an illegal partisan gerrymander, replacing it with court drawn maps that favored
Democrats. After the state high court ruled, North Carolina Republican lawmakers appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the state Supreme Court had exceeded its authority. They relied upon the Elections Clause of the Constitution that provides that rules governing the “manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” must be prescribed in “each state by the legislature thereof.” Under the independent state legislature theory, the lawmakers argued, state legislatures should be able to set rules with little to no interference from the state courts. The justices heard oral arguments in the case last winter and some of them appeared to express some support for a version of the doctrine. But after the case was argued at the Supreme Court, and before the justices could render an opinion, new developments occurred in North Carolina. After the last election, the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped its majority to Republican. In April, the newly composed North Carolina Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision and held that the state Constitution gives states courts no role to play in policing partisan gerrymandering. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent, joined in full by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in part by Justice Samuel Alito, arguing that the court should have dismissed the case as moot, given how circumstances around the case evolved after the justices heard it. “In short, this case is over, and petitioners won,” Thomas wrote, referring to how a newly-reconstituted North Carolina Supreme Court reheard the case this year and reversed its decision in favor of the defenders of the Republican-drawn map. “It follows that no live controversy remains before this Court.” In a section joined only by Gorsuch, Thomas went on to criticize the merits of the majority’s opinion Tuesday. Thomas accused the majority opinion of opening “a new field for over state election law – and a far more uncertain one” – an allusion to the blockbuster election disputes that arose in the 2000 presidential race. Thomas wrote that he “fear[ed]” that the framework put forward by the majority “will have the effect of investing potentially large swaths of state constitutional law with the character of a federal question not amenable to meaningful or principled adjudication by federal courts.” The-CNN-Wire ™ & © 2023 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.