OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
North Carolina’s closely-watched election case is before the U.S. Supreme Court and could upend the 2024 presidential race.
“Conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical about a state court’s decision to strike down Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina, but it seemed unlikely a majority would embrace a broad theory that could upend election law nationwide. The appeal brought by North Carolina Republicans asks the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to embrace a hitherto obscure legal argument called the ‘independent state legislature theory,’ which could strip state courts of the power to strike down certain election laws enacted by state legislatures,” the New Yorker reported.
“The independent state legislature argument hinges on language in the Constitution that says election rules ‘shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.’ Supporters of the theory, which has never been endorsed by the Supreme Court, say the language supports the notion that, when it comes to federal election rules, legislatures have ultimate power under state law, potentially irrespective of potential constraints imposed by state constitutions,” the outlet added.
“Backed by Republican leaders at the N.C. General Assembly, the crux of the argument is that they and all other state legislators should have much broader power to write election laws, with courts mostly not allowed to stop them by ruling their actions unconstitutional. They’ve been tight-lipped about the case since filing it this spring, mostly preferring to avoid commenting on it to reporters and instead doing their talking through legal briefs. Beyond redistricting the case also has the potential to change how North Carolina and the 49 other states handle everything from early voting and mail-in ballots rules to voter ID, recounts, post-election audits, and anything else that could possibly affect an election,” the outlet added.
However, there’s been another major turn of events.
The newly Republican-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court will rehear a major redistricting case at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court decisions expected this year.
“The North Carolina high court’s impudence has national implications. If the court reverses its previous rulings, the Moore v. Harper case, pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, could be rendered moot. That case addresses the independent state legislature theory, which suggests that a state constitution cannot limit a state legislature when it determines the rules for federal elections. The theory would give state legislatures free rein to impose restrictive voting laws even if they violate the state constitution. As election law professor Rick Hasen notes, mooting that case could have devastating consequences if the issue arises again in the context of a disputed presidential election,” the Washington Monthly reported.
Democrats are out in full force pushing their usual talking points by claiming it could “end democracy.”
Kathay Feng, who leads the anti-gerrymandering group Common Cause, called it “the case of the century.”
“It is a case that asserts a bizarre and fabricated reading of the United States Constitution … to create a situation where elections are already rigged from the start,” she said.
Eric Holder, a Democrat and former U.S. attorney general under Barack Obama, said it “should keep every American up at night.”
Michael Luttig, a Republican and retired federal judge who George W. Bush considered nominating to the Supreme Court, recently called it “the single most important case on American democracy” of the last 250 years.
A ruling could come in early 2023 and Democrats are clearly worried about it.
“Some argue it could allow state legislators to overturn future presidential elections. Others say it could create a convoluted system of election rules that would end in people being disenfranchised, as elections split into two systems — one for federal races and another for state races — unlike the system we have now, where all the races are on one ballot with one set of rules,” the report stated.
