Supreme Court’s Ruling Rejects GOP in North Carolina Case, Impacting Elections Beyond the State

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state courts possess the authority to limit the actions of legislatures in matters of federal redistricting and elections. This ruling dismisses the arguments put forth by North Carolina Republicans, which had the potential to greatly reshape congressional and presidential races not only within the state but also nationwide.

With a 6-3 majority, the justices upheld the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling that deemed a congressional districting plan excessively partisan under state law.

However, the Supreme Court hinted at potential limitations on state courts’ ability to oversee elections for Congress and president, suggesting that further election-related cases on this issue are likely.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing on behalf of the court, emphasized that “state courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review.”

This ruling marked the fourth instance in the term where conservative and liberal justices united to reject the most extreme legal arguments presented by conservative state elected officials and advocacy groups. Prior decisions on voting rights, a Native American child welfare law, and a Biden administration immigration policy also defied ideological boundaries on the court.

Anticipated major rulings by Friday include affirmative action in higher education, the administration’s $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan, and a clash between religious and LGBTQ rights.

In practical terms, Tuesday’s ruling has minimal impact in North Carolina since the state Supreme Court, now controlled by Republicans, has already nullified its redistricting decision. Another redistricting case from Ohio remains pending if the justices wish to delve further into the matter before the upcoming elections.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, however, would have dismissed the North Carolina case due to intervening state court actions.

Former President Barack Obama, in a rare public comment on a court decision, commended the outcome. He described the ruling as a resounding rejection of the far-right theory propagated by election deniers and extremists aiming to undermine democracy. Obama emphasized that the decision clarifies that courts can continue safeguarding voters’ rights in North Carolina and throughout the nation.

Conversely, the leader of a Republican redistricting group expressed satisfaction with the court’s clarification regarding state courts’ limitations. Adam Kincaid, president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, stated that the decision should serve as a warning to state courts that tend to exceed the constitutional boundaries of judicial review. He deemed it an initial positive step toward curbing recent overreaches by state courts.

Derek Muller, an elections expert and law professor at the University of Iowa, noted that the ruling leaves some leeway to challenge state court decisions on federal election matters, but such cases are likely to be infrequent. Muller added that the vast majority of state court decisions affecting federal elections are expected to continue without any changes.

The North Carolina case garnered significant attention because four conservative justices had indicated their inclination to restrict the power of state courts in elections for president and Congress. Opponents of this notion, known as the independent legislature theory, argued that a robust ruling favoring North Carolina Republicans could have wide-ranging effects beyond the state’s redistricting.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law estimated that over 170 state constitutional provisions, more than 650 state laws delegating election policy-making authority to state and local officials, and numerous regulations, including polling place locations, could be at stake.

In December, the justices heard arguments in an appeal by Republican leaders in the North Carolina Legislature. The Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court had blocked their attempts to draw heavily partisan congressional districts, asserting that the GOP’s map violated the state Constitution.

During the arguments, which spanned almost three hours, the justices seemed reluctant to issue a sweeping ruling. Both liberal and conservative justices appeared to challenge the core argument of the challenge, which sought to eliminate state courts’ power to strike down gerrymandered congressional district maps drawn by legislatures based on state constitutional violations.

As North Carolina prepares for a new round of redistricting, it is anticipated that a map favoring Republicans will be produced. Democratic Governor Roy Cooper applauded Tuesday’s decision but implicitly acknowledged that it does not prevent Republican-controlled legislatures from drawing a congressional map that benefits their party.

Governor Cooper, who lacks the authority to block redistricting plans approved by lawmakers under state law, warned that Republican legislators in North Carolina and across the country continue to pose a significant threat to democracy by enacting laws that manipulate elections for partisan gain and interfere with the freedom to vote.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about elections

More about elections

• Supreme Court rules on state courts’ power in federal elections
• Supreme Court upholds North Carolina court ruling on partisan districting
• Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion on state courts’ authority in elections
• Analysis of the Supreme Court ruling and its implications
• Barack Obama’s statement on the Supreme Court ruling