The Role of the Supreme Court in Defining Federalism in the United States

The U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Independent State Legislature Theory

A Landmark Decision for Democracy

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a 6-3 decision in the case of Moore v. Harper, ruling to reject the radical independent state legislature (ISL) theory. This decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, represents a significant victory for democracy. The Court held that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not grant exclusive and independent authority to state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. Furthermore, it affirmed that state legislatures are not immune from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review. The majority opinion, supported by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphatically stated that state legislatures remain subject to state judicial review when prescribing rules for federal elections.

A Repudiation of the AHistorical and Unfounded ISL Theory

The U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of the ISL theory is a repudiation of an ahistorical and unfounded argument advanced by North Carolina Republican legislators. The ISL theory posits that the Elections Clause grants state legislatures the sole authority to draw new congressional districts, thereby shielding the laws enacted by state legislatures from state judicial review. However, the Court’s decision in Moore makes clear that this theory lacks any historical basis.

State Courts’ Role in Reviewing Congressional Districts

The ruling in Moore reaffirms the indispensable role of state courts in reviewing congressional maps and other election laws that regulate federal elections. It upholds the authority of state courts to ensure compliance with state constitutions by allowing them to review and strike down partisan gerrymanders enacted by state legislatures. State courts play a crucial duty in safeguarding fairness and ensuring that electoral boundaries are not manipulated for political gain.

The Background of Moore v. Harper

The Moore v. Harper case originated as a redistricting lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s new congressional and legislative maps, drawn by the state legislature using 2020 census data. The North Carolina Supreme Court invalidated the congressional map in February 2022, ruling that it constituted a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution. The court ordered the map to be replaced with a fairer interim congressional map for the 2022 election cycle. In response, North Carolina Republican legislators invoked the ISL theory and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that state courts have no authority to review legislatively drawn congressional maps.

The Role of State Courts in North Carolina

Following the U.S. Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in Moore, the North Carolina Supreme Court, which shifted to a Republican majority in the 2022 midterm elections, reheard the case and reversed its prior decisions. However, the majority opinion in Moore clarifies that the U.S. Supreme Court still retains jurisdiction to review the North Carolina Supreme Court’s judgment on the Federal Elections Clause issue.

The Implications of the Court’s Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Moore has broader implications beyond North Carolina. It indicates that the Court is unlikely to take up an appeal of a lawsuit by Republican legislators out of Ohio that similarly raises the ISL theory. This rejection of the theory strengthens the power of state courts to review federal election rules and congressional districts established by state legislatures.

Challenges to Election Laws and Congressional Maps

The decision in Moore comes at a critical time, as Democracy Docket is tracking seven cases in state courts challenging congressional maps and 21 cases challenging voting laws or procedures under state constitutions or state law. The rejection of the ISL theory allows these cases to move forward unimpeded. State courts will continue to play a crucial role in reviewing challenges to congressional redistricting schemes, ensuring compliance with state constitutions and state laws.

Protecting Democracy and Fair Representation

The U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of the ISL theory in Moore serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting democracy and fair representation. By upholding the authority of state courts to review and strike down partisan gerrymandering, the Court ensures that the voices of voters are not silenced or undermined by manipulation of electoral boundaries. It reinforces the principle that state legislatures must be held accountable to the values enshrined in state constitutions.

The Future of State Court Challenges

With the Supreme Court’s rejection of the ISL theory, state courts can continue to perform their crucial duty of reviewing challenges to congressional redistricting schemes. The Court’s ruling signals that state courts will serve as the primary venue for resolving disputes over redistricting and other election laws. As such, it is vital for state courts to maintain their independence and adhere to their constitutional duties, ensuring that the integrity of the democratic process is preserved.

In conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper represents a milestone in the fight for democracy and fair representation. By rejecting the unfounded ISL theory, the Court upholds the power of state courts to review and strike down partisan gerrymanders, reinforcing the fundamental principle that voters’ voices must be protected. State courts will continue to play a vital role in ensuring election laws comply with state constitutions, safeguarding the integrity of the democratic process. It falls upon state courts to maintain their independence and rise to the occasion, as their decisions will shape the future of our democracy.