1 of 4 | The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state courts can accept cases on gerrymandered maps created by state legislatures. Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI |
License Photo
June 27 (UPI) -- A mix of conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices on Tuesday rejected North Carolina GOP efforts to eliminate nearly all checks and balances in drawing Congressional maps under the so-called "independent state legislature" theory.
The 6-3 decision in the case of Moore vs. Harper preserves the right of state courts to rule on partisan gerrymandering lawsuits in congressional redistricting and review other federal election rules set by state legislatures.
The case was brought by North Carolina House Speaker Timothy K. Moore who sought to establish the state legislature's supremacy over state courts regarding election laws.
North Carolina's Republican-led legislature, in defending its own map, had argued that the federal Constitution gave it exclusive authority to regulate federal elections, leaving the state courts no power to rule on maps approved by the state government.
The "independent state legislature" theory was also backed by the Republican National Committee but rejected by a slew of law experts, conservative and liberal constitutional scholars and the Conference of State Chief Justices, representing the chiefs in all 50 states.
Chief Justice John Roberts and other members of the court ruled not to invoke the theory, upholding a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling that the 2022 political maps violated the state constitution.
"The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review," Roberts said.
Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the liberal block to form the majority.
The majority ruled that while state courts can review a legislature's actions regarding election laws, they are required to do so within the "ordinary bounds" of judicial review. The high court, however, did not establish clear parameters for when those boundaries are exceeded.
"While the Court does not adopt a test by which state court interpretation of state law can be measured in cases implicating the Elections Clause, state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections."
Conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented the ruling with Thomas writing the court should have turned down the case.
"This is a straightforward case of mootness," he wrote. "The federal defense no longer makes any difference to this case -- whether we agree with the defense, disagree with it, or say nothing at all, the final judgement in this litigation will be exactly the same."