A Republican-led challenge is asking the justices to rule on a novel case that could increase the power of state lawmakers over elections for Congress and the presidency.
In a case from North Carolina, where Republican efforts to draw congressional districts heavily in their favor were blocked by a Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court, the court will hear arguments on Wednesday.
The court-drawn map produced seven seats for each party in the North Carolina elections.
The question for the justices is whether the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to make the rules for congressional elections.
The North Carolina court decision is the most important case in the history of American democracy.
The Republican leaders of North Carolina's legislature told the Supreme Court that the Constitution places the regulation of federal elections in their hands.
Three conservative justices voiced their support for the idea that the state court had overstepped its bounds when it came to federal elections. Four people have written about limiting the power of state courts.
The independent state legislature theory has never been invoked by the supreme court. Three conservatives in the Bush v. Gore case wrote an opinion that mentioned it.
Proponents of the concept argue that the effects could be much broader if the court recognized it now.
More than 170 state constitutional provisions, over 650 state laws delegated authority to make election policies to state and local officials, and thousands of regulations down to the location of polling places are all at risk of being undermined by the most robust ruling for North Carolina Republicans.
Several prominent conservatives and Republicans have lined up against the idea that legislatures can't be challenged in state courts when making decisions about federal elections.
The group includes a former California Gov., a law professor, and a lawyer for Republicans.
Confidence in our elections is at a low ebb due to ongoing and widespread efforts to sow distrust and spread misinformation. The version of the independent state legislature theory advanced by the petitioning group threatens to make a bad situation worse and further undermine confidence in our elections.
The arguments are taking place a day after the final contest of the Georgia Senate race.
State courts ruled in favor of the Democrats in that contest, allowing them to vote on the Saturday before the election.
The case is an opportunity for the high court to rein in out-of-control state courts which are being pushed by Democratic attorneys to create new rules for voting.
Snead said that courts have been used to rewrite election laws if they don't suit their agendas. When it flies in the face of the constitution, we don't want it.
He is one of the people who believe the case doesn't represent a threat to democracy.
A group of New York voters wrote in a court filing that the justices can place limits on state courts without upsetting the choices New York and other states have made to restrict partisan politics.
Republicans may not benefit if the court gives more power to state legislatures over congressional lines.
During the last cycle, the majority of the states used independent commission to draw the new maps. There were 95 House seats in states with Democratic legislatures and governors, compared to only 12 states with GOP control. A ruling that gives the legislature ultimate power over the drawing of House maps could lead to the abolition of the commission.
The chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee said that the fringe theory would be bad. It could cause a wave of partisan discrimination.
Less dramatic changes may not affect the GOP's way on a national map that was fought to a draw, and where state court rulings cost Democrats as many House seats as Republicans.
The court-drawn districts were allowed to be used this year after the Supreme Court refused to intervene in the North Carolina case.
The justices dissented. Alito wrote for the three that there must be limits on the authority of state courts to counter actions taken by state legislature. I think the applicants will be able to show that the Supreme Court exceeded the limits.
The need for federal courts to police the actions of state courts when it comes to federal elections has been written about by Supreme Court justices.
The Chief Justice's record gives both sides hope. He dissented from the court's decision in Arizona.
The Constitution does not allow a state to exclude the Legislature from the process of drawing up new maps.
Roberts wrote the court's majority opinion that closed federal courts but noted state courts remained open. He wrote that provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts.
Amy ConeyBarrett has no track record in this area.
Regardless of the outcome of the high-court case in North Carolina, a new round of re-drawing the state's congressional districts is expected to take place next year.
In last month's elections, voters flipped the majority on the state Supreme Court, electing two new Republican justices that give the GOP a 4-2 edge and make it probable that the court would uphold a map with more Republican districts.
That's right.
Four Associated Press writers contributed to the report.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
