![]()
Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Far-Reaching Elections Case
In a North Carolina case, the court is being asked to decide whether to drastically expand the authority that state legislatures have over election maps and voting laws.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday about the independent state legislature theory, which contends that state judiciaries are powerless to modify or override decisions by state legislatures regarding federal election laws and maps.
WASHINGTON — It is a case “with profound consequences for American democracy,” said J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge long a hero to conservatives.
Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, a Republican, has said it is “the biggest federalism issue in a long time, maybe ever.”
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Moore v. Harper, a dispute between voting rights advocates and North Carolina’s General Assembly, which is controlled by Republicans, that could drastically increase the power that state legislatures have over voting issues.
Just how much power is at issue could become clearer as the arguments play out. But there is no arguing how high the stakes are in this lawsuit. The court is being asked to decide whether state election laws and political maps passed by state legislatures — specifically, a Republican gerrymander of North Carolina’s 14 House seats that the state’s Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional this year — should continue to be subject to judicial review in state courts.
Republicans seeking to restore the legislative map have argued that the state court is powerless to act under what had been a fringe theory known as the independent state legislature doctrine. The theory argues that the federal Constitution gives state lawmakers sweeping power to draw maps and set election rules — even if they violate a state’s laws or its constitution.
The issue comes at a time when gerrymanders have become so extreme and technologically sophisticated that they can enable parties to almost indefinitely lock in political dominance. When new state legislatures convene next year, 28 will have a Republican majority (as will essentially Nebraska, which is nonpartisan in a Republican state), 19 will be Democratic and two will be split.
That is contentious enough by itself. But the Moore case also has a marked ideological cast. A Supreme Court increasingly in tune with the political right is being asked to ratify a legal concept favored by some ardent conservatives — one that four Supreme Court justices have already expressed at least tentative support for.
At the same time, many in the legal and political establishments see a dangerous subversion of democratic values.
