WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday announced that it will hear a case that could completely reshape the way federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures the exclusive power to established, without review by the state courts, to establish electoral rules that conflict with the state constitution.
The lawsuit has the potential to affect many aspects of the 2024 election, including giving judges the power to influence the presidential race whenever state courts interpret their constitutions. to request changes to state election laws.
The case involved a voting map drawn by the North Carolina legislature that was dismissed as partisan by the State Supreme Court. Republicans seeking to restore the legislative map argue that state courts are powerless to act on the so-called independent state legislature doctrine.
The doctrine is based on reading two similar articles of the US Constitution. One of the problems in the North Carolina case, Election Terms“The time, place and manner of the elections for senators and representatives, shall be determined by their legislatures in each state,” said the statement.
That is to say, North Carolina Republicans argued, that the state legislature has sole responsibility among state agencies for engaging congressional districts and state courts that do not what role.
North Carolina Supreme Court refute the argument that it was not authorized to review the actions of the state legislature, saying that it would “deteriorate the sovereignty of the states, the authority of state constitutions, and the independence of the state courts.” state, and would have unreasonable and dangerous consequences.”
In an earlier encounter with the case in March, when the challengers fail seek emergency reliefthree members of the United States Supreme Court said they application will be issued.
“This case raises a particularly important and recurring question about constitutional law, namely the extent to which state courts have authority to overrule rules passed by the state legislature. passed for use in conducting federal elections,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote, joining Judges Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.
But he said the court should consider it in an orderly fashion, he wrote, outside the context of an approaching election. He wrote that the court should issue a petition for review of value “in an appropriate case – in this case from North Carolina or in a similar case from another state.”
The court has now accepted the petition in the North Carolina case, Moore and HarperNo. 21-1271, and it will hear arguments in the next term, which begins in October.
Some precedents of the United States Supreme Court tend to undermine the doctrine of the legislatures of the independent states.
When the court closed the federal court declared partisan gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common cause in 2019, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who writes for the court’s five most conservative members, said state courts can continue to hear such cases – including in context Congress redistributes the region.
Lawyer defense The North Carolina Supreme Court ruling in the new case said it was a poor vehicle for addressing the scope of independent state legislative doctrine, since it was the legislature that authorized the state courts. state to review redistricting laws.
