The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that could dramatically change the way states conduct elections.
A ruling favoring the North Carolina lawmakers who brought the case could limit state court oversight of election maps drawn by state lawmakers. Some critics fear it could go further and thwart the power of the courts to determine the validity of elections, leaving state legislatures virtually unchecked.
“What’s at stake is ultimately which institution decides if elections are fair,” said Daniel Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University. “Do we want the courts to play a meaningful role in deciding whether elections are fair or lawful?
The case is the culmination of long-running legal and political battles over state electoral maps and so-called gerrymandering across the United States – when political constituencies are drawn in favor of certain parties. The debate touches on many burning issues in American society, including voting rights, race and political polarization.
The suit stems from rulings by North Carolina courts, which in 2019 struck down the state’s electoral map as unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering intended to favor Republican candidates. The map was created after a previous iteration was rejected for racial gerrymandering. The North Carolina Supreme Court finally approved a map drawn by independent “special masters.”
The Republican-led North Carolina General Assembly argues that under the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures, rather than judges, “have primary responsibility for making the election rules,” including those for determine congressional districts.
The constitution “does not leave states free to limit the power constitutionally given to the legislature,” she said in legal documents.
In opposition, voting rights organizations say the constitution and Supreme Court precedent “rebut the idea” that state legislators have “freedom to regulate federal elections regardless of state constitutions.” states, as interpreted by state courts,” and warned that North Carolina’s interpretation of the constitution “threatens to upend centuries of established practice in U.S. elections.”
One of the strong points of the arguments will likely be the independent state legislature theory, which holds that state legislatures should be free to regulate elections with little scrutiny from state courts.
At least three justices appear open to that, Urman said, including conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who appeared sympathetic to the notion in his concurring opinion in the landmark case that denied a Florida vote recount and awarded the presidential election to George W Bush in 2000. .
In a brief objection to North Carolina lawmakers, the association representing the chief justices of the 50 U.S. states said the Supreme Court has only rarely “intruded” on state courts’ interpretations of state laws. If the court sided with North Carolina, state legislatures would still be controlled by Congress and the federal courts. But previous Supreme Court rulings could limit the federal courts’ involvement in political gerrymandering, Urman said.
Critics warn that adopting an extreme version of this independent state legislature theory could allow state lawmakers to ignore voters and install their own group of voters, whose votes are counted. by Congress to certify the US presidential elections. “There’s the 2024 doomsday drama lurking behind it — that’s another reason why this is such a huge deal,” Urman said.
