.svg)
Latest Business News
Supreme Court Rules Against Republicans in North Carolina Gerrymandering Case
Court Declines to Embrace "Independent State Legislature" Theory
The US Supreme Court has declined to impose new limits on state courts reviewing certain election-related issues by ruling against Republicans in North Carolina fighting for a congressional district map that would heavily favor their candidates. The North Carolina Supreme Court was acting within its authority in concluding that the map constituted a partisan gerrymander under the state constitution, according to a 6-3 vote by the justices. The court declined to embrace the "independent state legislature" theory, which Republicans say limits state court authority to strike down certain election laws enacted by state legislatures. After last year's ruling, the court recently overturned the decision, a move that prompted questions about whether the justices even needed to decide the case.
Impact on Election-Related Rules
A Supreme Court ruling that embraced the "independent state legislature" theory would have affected not only redistricting disputes, but also other election-related rules about issues like mail-in voting and voter access to the polls that legislatures might seek to enact even when state courts have held that those rules violate state constitutions. The theory could also bring into question the power of governors to veto legislation.
Background of the Theory
The "independent state legislature" theory hinges on language in the Constitution that says election rules "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." Supporters of the theory argue that 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 theory has never been endorsed by the Supreme Court, but then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist embraced a version of it in the Bush v. Gore ruling.
Different Versions of the Argument
There are several versions of the argument, some of which would merely limit the authority of state courts in certain circumstances and others that would go further in giving legislatures virtually unchecked authority.
Impact on 2024 Presidential Election
The North Carolina case was being closely watched for its potential impact on the 2024 presidential election. Republicans led by Tim Moore, the speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, invoked the theory after the state Supreme Court struck down the congressional district map in February of last year. The state court ruled then that the 14 congressional districts were "unlawful partisan gerrymanders."
Democratic Response
Voting rights advocates and Democratic voters had turned to the state court after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering claims could not be heard in federal court, but left open the possibility that state courts could address the issue. Democrats and voting rights activists issued stark warnings about the potential impact of the case in light of the attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Republican Response
Moore and other Republicans immediately asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the maps, saying the state court had overstepped its authority. The high court agreed to take up the case, but it left in place a replacement map used for this year's midterm elections. Democrats and Republicans each won seven seats.
List of Those Backing the Theory
Various conservative groups that push for greater restrictions on voting and claim that voter fraud is a significant issue have backed the theory. Those backing the theory in briefs filed at the court include John Eastman, the lawyer involved in Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election who argued that then-Vice President Mike Pence could block the certification of President Joe Biden's victory on Jan. 6, 2021.
Overall, the ruling against Republicans in the North Carolina gerrymandering case and the Supreme Court's decision not to embrace the "independent state legislature" theory could have significant implications for the future of election-related rules. Had the theory been embraced, it could have limited state courts' authority to strike down certain election laws enacted by state legislatures, which in turn could have impacted issues like mail-in voting and voter access to the polls. The ruling could also have implications for the power of governors to veto legislation.
For businesses looking to enter the political sphere, this ruling highlights the importance and impact of state-level politics on the federal level. It also emphasizes the importance of understanding the intricacies of the law and staying informed on rulings that may impact specific industries. This ruling serves as a reminder for businesses to prioritize staying updated on the legal landscape and understanding how rulings like this one may impact their operations and bottom line. Regardless of political affiliation or industry, businesses must stay informed on relevant legal decisions and understand how they may impact the playing field.
