WASHINGTON DC – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that North Carolina’s most powerful court did not overstep its bounds in striking down a redistricting plan proposed by Republicans as excessively partisan under state law.
The justices rejected 6-3 the broader vision of a case that could have transformed the elections for Congress and the presidency.
North Carolina Republicans had asked the federal highest court to leave state legislatures with virtually no oversight by their state courts when it comes to federal elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision that “state courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restrictions when legislatures act under the power vested in them by the Election Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review.”
However, the highest court suggested there may be limits to state court efforts to control elections for Congress and the president.
The practical effect of the decision is minimal, as the North Carolina Supreme Court, with a new Republican majority, has already overturned its redistricting ruling.
Judges Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch reportedly dismissed the case due to North Carolina judicial intervention.
Another Ohio redistricting case is pending, if the justices want to say more on the issue before next year’s election.
The North Carolina case drew a lot of attention because four conservative justices suggested that the Supreme Court should control state courts in their oversight of elections for president and Congress.
Opponents of the idea, known as the independent legislature theory, argued that the effects of a strong ruling for North Carolina Republicans could be much broader than simple redistricting and exacerbate political polarization.
Potentially at stake were more than 170 state constitutional provisions, more than 650 state laws delegating authority to make election policy to state and local officials, and thousands of regulations including the location of polling places, according to the Brennan Center for Justice in New York University School of Law.
The justices heard arguments in December in an appeal by the state’s Republican leaders in the legislature. His efforts to draw constituencies strongly in his favor were blocked by a Democratic majority in the state Supreme Court because the Republican map violated the state constitution.
A map drawn up by the court produced seven seats for each party in the 2022 midterm elections in North Carolina, a highly contested state.
The question for the justices was whether the provision in the US Constitution that gives state legislatures the power to make rules about the “times, places, and manner” of congressional elections excludes state courts from the process.
Former federal judge Michael Luttig, a leading conservative who joined the legal team defending the North Carolina court’s decision, said in the fall that the result could have transformative effects on US elections.
“This is the most important case on American democracy, and for American democracy, in the nation’s history,” Luttig said.
North Carolina’s top Republican lawmakers told the Supreme Court that the “carefully drawn lines of the Constitution place the regulation of federal elections in the hands of state legislatures, Congress, and no one else.”
During almost three hours of arguments, the judges were skeptical of reaching a comprehensive decision in the case.
The liberal and conservative justices appeared to be at odds with the main goal of a challenge that asked them to essentially remove the power of state courts to strike down maps of congressional constituencies drawn up by the legislature and rigged on grounds of violation of state constitutions. .
In North Carolina, a new round of redistricting is expected to advance and produce a map with more Republican districts.
