One case next term could see the Supreme Court embrace an extreme legal theory and upend the long-established way that the country administers its elections.
SARAH L. VOISIN/THE WASHINGTON POST/GETTY IMAGES
By Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Nathaniel Rakich
JUL. 7, 2022, AT 6:00 AM
Do state courts have the power to interpret their own state constitutions? The Supreme Court could be poised to say “no” — at least when it comes to redistricting and election law.
Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Moore v. Harper in the coming fall term. In that case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are asking the court to overturn the state Supreme Court’s decision to throw out their gerrymandered congressional map and impose one of the court’s own.
Their argument rests on an extreme reading of the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution that posits that only state legislatures and Congress have the authority to decide how federal elections are run. Under this school of thought, known as the “independent state legislature” theory, state courts would no longer be able to intervene — even when a legislature violated the state’s constitution, as was found to be the case in North Carolina.
The independent state legislature theory is fewer than 25 years old, and for most of its life, it’s been relegated to the fringes of academia. But it was widely promoted by former President Donald Trump and his allies as they attempted to first undermine — and then overturn — the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. And several Supreme Court justices have already suggested that they’re on board with the theory. During litigation over election laws in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in 2020, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch endorsed some version of the idea that state legislatures should have nearly unfettered power over how federal elections are run, and earlier this year, they said in an emergency-docket ruling that they would have ruled in favor of the North Carolina legislature.
If the Supreme Court sides with North Carolina Republicans in this case, it would have massive implications for election law. Depending on how the court rules, state courts might no longer be allowed to strike down legislatures’ proposed congressional maps for being gerrymandered. And if this happens, the way American elections are conducted would change in dramatic and destabilizing ways.
Thomas Wolf, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, said ruling for the North Carolina Legislature would be “stepping into an arrangement of election law that has never governed the country.” An extreme embrace of the theory by the Supreme Court would hand legislatures power over every aspect of how federal elections are run, to the exclusion of not only state courts but also possibly other state actors like governors and election administrators. “It would be a voter suppressor’s fever dream,” Wolf said.
Partisan gerrymandering could get much more extreme
First and foremost, if North Carolina Republicans prevail at the Supreme Court, state courts would lose some of their power to curtail gerrymandering — or maybe all of it. If the court accepts the independent state legislature theory but rules narrowly, it could allow state courts to overturn maps but not redraw them, according to Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “The idea is that there are certain things state courts can’t do,” Vladeck said. “So a state court could look at the legislature’s map and say, ‘Nope, try again.’”
But several more extreme paths are possible too. One option is that state courts might be barred from overturning maps based on vague sections of their state constitutions — like an equal protection clause — which would hamstring their ability to intervene in many states. Or the Supreme Court might simply rule that state courts can’t get involved in partisan gerrymandering disputes at all. That would directly contradict a 2019 ruling where the court’s Republican appointees said that federal courts couldn’t hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering,1 but they explicitly noted that state courts were still free to intervene. But the court is even more conservative than it was then, which means there might be a majority to turn around and limit state courts’ power.
That could mean a lot more work for the federal courts — exactly the kind of work that the justices said three years ago that they didn’t want federal judges to be doing. But it would also likely result in much more aggressive and unfair gerrymanders.