Supreme Court rejects Republican attempts to reshape the way federal elections are conducted and condemns efforts to reshape North Carolina’s congressional district map
- The judges voted 6-3 to uphold the North Carolina Supreme Court decision
- Republicans there wanted to redraw the map giving them control over most of the districts
- The ruling rejected the theory that would radically change federal election rules
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republican attempts to radically reform the way elections are conducted across the country by giving state legislators almost unchecked powers to redraw congressional maps and enact election rules.
The justices voted 6 to 3 to uphold a North Carolina Supreme Court decision, saying it had not overstepped its authority by striking out a new map of congressional districts as overly partisan.
Republican lawmakers essentially asked the nation’s highest court to give state legislatures ultimate authority, not controlled by state courts, in federal elections.
According to his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “State courts retain the power to apply state constitutional limitations when the legislature acts in accordance with the power conferred upon them by the Electoral Clause.”
“But federal courts must not give up their own task of exercising judicial review.”
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republican attempts to radically reform the way elections are conducted across the country by giving state legislators almost unchecked powers to redraw congressional maps and enact election rules. It came from a case in North Carolina accusing Republicans of gerrymandering
The justices voted 6 to 3 to uphold a North Carolina Supreme Court decision, saying it had not overstepped its authority by striking out a map of congressional districts as partisan.
Another ruling could have had major consequences for the 2024 elections.
And it comes at a time when the role of partisan lawmakers in state elections is under scrutiny for how former President Donald Trump and his allies attempted to reverse the results of the 2020 and influence the 2022 midterm elections.
Former President Barack Obama welcomed the decision.
“This ruling rejects the far-right theory that threatened to undermine our democracy, and makes it clear that courts can continue to defend voters’ rights — in North Carolina and in every state,” he tweeted.
The case before the Supreme Court was based on the ‘independent legislature’. It is based on a strict reading of the constitutional clause, which states: “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by its legislature.”
Supporters argue that this means courts, governors or independent commissions cannot interfere with a legislature’s authority over elections, even if legislators draft election maps or violate protections enshrined in state constitutions.
Four of the Supreme Court justices have issued opinions suggesting some support for the controversial theory.
In North Carolina, the state Supreme Court struck down the map proposed by Republicans in February last year.
Former President Barack Obama welcomed the Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday
North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore talks to reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court after attending oral arguments in the case on Dec. 7, 2022
Of the 14 congressional districts, the GOP would have controlled all but three districts.
The Tar Heel State Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 along party lines that the card was “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt” in its partisan favor.
“Achieving a party advantage inconsistent with a political party’s statewide level of voter support is neither a compelling nor a legitimate government interest,” the court ruled.
Instead, the midterm elections were held with a court-drawn map designed to evenly distribute support.
Republican leaders in the legislature took their case to court in December, arguing that the state Supreme Court had overstepped its authority.
At the time, Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, told the Associated Press that “this case could profoundly change the balance of power in states and prevent state courts and agencies from protecting people’s voting rights.”
“There is a wide range of ways in which the court can decide on this. Taken to an extreme, it would be a radical reworking of our system of elections,” he said.