Moore v. Harper facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Moore v. Harper |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 7, 2022 Decided June 27, 2023 |
|
| Full case name | Timothy K. Moore, in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Rebecca Harper, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 21-1271 |
| Citations | 600 U.S. 1 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion Announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether a State's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives . . . prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson |
| Concurrence | Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Gorsuch; Alito (Part I) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1 | |
Moore v. Harper was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It rejected a big idea called the independent state legislature theory (ISL). This theory claimed that only state lawmakers could set the rules for federal elections in their states. It said that state courts, governors, or state constitutions could not check these rules.
The case started in North Carolina. After the 2020 United States census, North Carolina's lawmakers redrew the election maps for Congress. State courts later found these maps were drawn unfairly to help one political party. This unfair drawing of maps is called gerrymandering.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that the Elections Clause in the U.S. Constitution does not give state legislatures total power over elections. This means state courts can review election rules made by state lawmakers.
Contents
How the Case Started
North Carolina's election maps have been argued about in courts for many years. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Rucho v. Common Cause. It said that federal courts could not get involved in cases about partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering is when maps are drawn to unfairly favor one political party.
However, federal courts can still check maps for racial gerrymandering. This is when maps are drawn unfairly based on race. This is against the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
After the 2020 United States census, North Carolina gained one more seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. This meant they had to redraw their election maps. The state's lawmakers, who were mostly Republican, drew new maps. Some people, including the state Senate's Democratic leader, felt these maps unfairly helped the Republican Party.
Many lawsuits were filed in November 2021. They claimed the new maps were unfair because of both race and party.
State Court Decisions
At first, a court in Wake County, North Carolina, said the maps were okay. They felt that getting involved in partisan gerrymandering would be overstepping their power. They also said there wasn't enough proof of racial gerrymandering.
But when the case went to the North Carolina Supreme Court, that court disagreed. In February 2022, they ruled 4-3 that the maps were unconstitutional. They sent the case back to the lower court. The lawmakers tried to draw new maps, but the judges still didn't approve them. So, a team of outside experts was asked to create a new map. This new map was accepted on February 24, 2022.
The state lawmakers then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the new maps from being used while they appealed. They wanted the Supreme Court to look at the `Elections Clause` issue. But the Supreme Court said no on March 7, 2022.
What is the Independent State Legislature Theory?
Throughout the court cases, the North Carolina lawmakers argued based on the independent state legislature theory (ISL). This theory comes from the `Elections Clause` in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. It says:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.
The ISL theory suggests that this part of the Constitution means only state legislatures can make decisions about election laws. It claims that state courts or governors cannot challenge these laws. This would give state lawmakers complete control over drawing election maps and other voting rules.
The Supreme Court and other courts have usually rejected this theory in the past. However, ISL gained more support from some Republicans and conservatives after the 2000 case Bush v. Gore. This made Moore v. Harper a very important case.
The Supreme Court's Role
The North Carolina lawmakers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court agreed to hear it on June 30, 2022.
Oral arguments, where lawyers present their cases, were held on December 7, 2022. Most of the Supreme Court justices seemed to reject the ISL theory. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett appeared to disagree with it. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas seemed to still support ISL.
A new situation came up in North Carolina. After the November 2022 elections, Republicans gained more seats on the North Carolina Supreme Court. In April 2023, this new state court majority changed the earlier ruling. They decided that the state's courts could not overrule the election maps set by the state legislature.
This change in the North Carolina court's decision could have made the U.S. Supreme Court case pointless. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the lawyers to explain if the case was still relevant. The North Carolina lawmakers argued that the case should still be heard.
The Decision
The Supreme Court announced its decision on June 27, 2023. In a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled that the `Elections Clause` does not give state legislatures total control over federal elections. This meant they agreed with the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision and rejected the ISL theory.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main opinion for the majority. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined him. Roberts said that the Court still had the right to decide on the ISL question. He wrote that the `Elections Clause` does not stop state courts from reviewing election laws. However, he also added that courts cannot go too far and take over the power of state legislatures.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion agreeing with Roberts. He said that federal courts should respect state court decisions, but not completely give up their own review.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissenting opinion, meaning he disagreed with the majority. Justices Neil Gorsuch and part of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion joined him. Thomas felt the case should have been dismissed as pointless. He worried that the Court's decision would make it harder for federal courts to handle state election laws.
What This Means
Moore v. Harper was seen as one of the most important cases the Supreme Court had heard recently. If the Court had supported the ISL theory, it could have greatly changed how federal elections work. It might have made it much harder to challenge gerrymandering or other voting restrictions.
Many other lawsuits about congressional election maps in different states were waiting for the outcome of Moore v. Harper. The Supreme Court's decision means that state courts can continue to play a role in ensuring fair election maps.
See also
- Democratic backsliding in the United States
- Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
- Texas v. Pennsylvania (2020)
