The United States Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling that has far-reaching implications for the power of state legislatures in setting election rules. In a case that could have upended congressional and even presidential elections, the court denied state legislatures unchecked authority to make decisions on all aspects of elections.
The case originated from a challenge brought by conservative legal activists backed by some GOP operatives. They sought to broaden the power of state legislatures, typically under Republican control in recent years, to determine election rules. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument and upheld the power of state courts to review election laws under state constitutions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by three liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – as well as two conservatives, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, wrote the majority opinion. On the other hand, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the U.S. Constitution allows state courts to interpret state constitutions and place limits on lawmakers’ powers. The court maintained that the Elections Clause does not shield state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review. Therefore, state courts can still review and challenge election laws enacted by state legislatures.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision does not grant state courts unrestricted authority to impose any limits on legislatures’ actions. Chief Justice Roberts cautioned state judges not to exceed the ordinary bounds of judicial review and assume the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections. The court ruled that state courts must not transgress their role in a way that undermines the authority of state legislatures.
The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a significant blow to proponents of the independent state legislature theory. This theory argued for expansive powers for state legislatures in setting election rules. The fact that Chief Justice Roberts secured a six-justice majority for his opinion effectively marginalized the three most conservative justices on the issue.
The decision surprised some court watchers since it stemmed from a case involving GOP legislators challenging a decision by the North Carolina state Supreme Court. The state court had previously ruled that legislatively drawn lines amounted to an illegal partisan gerrymander, leading to the use of a court-drawn map in the 2020 elections. However, the state court later vacated its own ruling, which could have undermined the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the federal case.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the case had become moot after the North Carolina Supreme Court’s actions. He contended that the federal defense presented by the Supreme Court could no longer affect the judgment in the litigation. However, the dissenters did not propose an alternative standard or claim that state legislatures should be entirely immune from state judicial review.
On the other hand, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, suggesting a specific standard to determine when state court rulings exceed their proper bounds. He endorsed the standard articulated by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore. Kavanaugh proposed that federal courts should strike down state court rulings that impermissibly distort state law beyond what a fair reading requires.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision has significant implications for the power of state legislatures in setting election rules. By upholding the authority of state courts to review election laws, the court has struck down the unchecked power of state legislatures. Although the decision left some questions unanswered, it represents a major defeat for proponents of the independent state legislature theory.
As the landscape of election rules continues to evolve, the Supreme Court‘s ruling underscores the importance of the balance between state legislatures and state courts. It acknowledges that state courts have a role to play in interpreting state constitutions and ensuring that legislatures do not exceed their powers in regulating federal elections. This decision reaffirms the court’s commitment to judicial review and provides guidance for the complex and context-specific questions that may arise in the future.
As always, it is essential to stay informed about the latest developments in the legal landscape surrounding elections. The Supreme Court’s decisions shape the course of democracy in the United States, and understanding their implications is crucial for citizens and policymakers alike.
First reported by Politico.
