Supreme Court Rejects Broad Interpretation of “Independent State Legislature” Theory in Landmark Voting Rights Case
WASHINGTON — In a significant ruling that could have far-reaching implications for state election laws, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a broad interpretation of the controversial “independent state legislature” theory. The 6-3 decision, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, came in a case that centered around who has the authority to determine the time, place, and manner of American elections, and whether state courts can serve as a check on the process.
The case, Moore v. Harper, involved a dispute over a gerrymandered congressional map in North Carolina. The state legislature’s voting map was struck down by the North Carolina Supreme Court for violating the state constitution. The justices were asked to reinstate the map, with the central issue being the “independent state legislature” theory. This theory argues that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants state legislators exclusive power to govern federal elections without interference from state constitutions, courts, and governors.
Experts in election and democracy warned that adopting this theory in its extreme form could have a profound impact on election administration and voting rules across the country. However, the Supreme Court rejected the theory, with Chief Justice Roberts writing that the Elections Clause “does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Roberts in the majority opinion.
The dissenting justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito, argued that the case should have been dismissed due to developments at the state level. The North Carolina Supreme Court, now under a new Republican majority, reversed its previous ruling in April, stating that the gerrymandered maps were no longer illegal. Justice Thomas wrote in the dissent that the case was moot and that the federal defense no longer had any impact on the litigation’s final judgment.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case has significant implications for the balance of power between state legislatures and state courts in shaping election laws. It reaffirms the role of state courts in reviewing and interpreting state election laws, ensuring that they do not unconstitutionally infringe upon the authority reserved for state legislatures by the U.S. Constitution.
This is a developing story, and further updates are expected.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the authority of state courts in reviewing and striking down election laws, including gerrymandered maps
G district boundaries had been challenged in state court by voters who claimed that the lines were drawn to benefit one political party over the other. The plaintiffs argued that the state court had the power to review and strike down the gerrymandered map, as it violated the state constitution’s guarantee of free and equal elections.
The state legislature, on the other hand, contended that only the legislature had the authority to determine the boundaries of the congressional districts, as they believed it was an inherent power granted to them under the Constitution. They argued that the state court’s interference with the redistricting process violated the “independent state legislature” theory, which holds that state legislatures have exclusive control over the rules and regulations governing elections.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the legislature’s argument and held that state courts can indeed play a role in reviewing and striking down election laws, including gerrymandered maps, that violate state constitutional provisions guaranteeing free and equal elections. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that while the Constitution grants state legislatures the power to prescribe the “times, places, and manner” of elections, it does not prevent state courts from enforcing those provisions.
The decision is seen as a blow to those who advocate for a strict interpretation of the “independent state legislature” theory, which some argue would give state legislatures unchecked power over the electoral process. Critics of the theory argue that it could potentially lead to abuses, such as partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, and other efforts to manipulate election outcomes.
The ruling also highlights the ongoing debate over the role of the courts in reviewing and striking down election laws. While some argue that courts should defer to the political branches on matters of elections, others contend that they have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of voters and ensure fair and impartial elections.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper is likely to have significant implications for state election laws across the country. It reaffirms the role of state courts in enforcing state constitutional provisions guaranteeing free and equal elections and may serve as a precedent for future challenges to election laws that are seen as undermining those guarantees.
As the nation grapples with issues of voter access, the integrity of the electoral process, and the balance of power between the judiciary and the political branches, this ruling will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing dialogue and shape the future of our democracy.
