Supreme Court stays out of election law, for now - NPR
The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to intervene in redistricting disputes in North Carolina and Pennsylvania ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. In both cases the Republican state legislature sought to block decisions issued by state supreme courts in both states based on the respective state constitutions.
Within the last month, state courts in both North Carolina and Pennsylvania drew new congressional district maps after after finding their state legislatures failed to adopt plans that met state constitutional and statutory requirements. Republican-aligned groups then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the state court decisions and adopt a newly advanced — and some say radical — theory, that would bar state supreme courts from ruling on election disputes involving federal offices.
On Monday, the court declined both of those challenges, a relief to voting rights advocates, but likely only a temporary reprieve.
A novel legal argument
The argument goes like this: The U.S. Constitution's election clause says that the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." They read that clause as meaning that only state legislatures may make election rules, unless the federal government passes contrary legislation.
Under this theory, any state court decision requiring the redrawing of state legislative maps is unconstitutional under the federal constitution. That is a dramatically different understanding than has ever been adopted by the Supreme Court. The high court has time and again deferred to state courts as interpreters of state constitutions and state laws, though the seeds of the independent state legislature theory were arguably sowed by three conservative three justices in Bush v. Gore, the case in which the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election in favor of President George W. Bush.
That said, it is was the words of the modern day conservative majority's that drove voting rights groups into state court in the first place. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may not intervene to prevent partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts. But the decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said explicitly that state courts may enforce limits on gerrymandering under state constitutional and statutory provisions. The Pennsylvania and North Carolina supreme courts then ruled that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions.
Nonetheless, in litigation surrounding the 2020 elections a year later, conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh signaled their strong interest in the independent state legislature theory. And yet, on Monday the justices ducked the question, at least for now.
While the full majority did not explain why its reasoning, Justice Kavanaugh explained his view that while the case raises an important issue that the court should address in a future case, "it is too late for the federal courts to order that the district lines be changed for the 2022 primary and general elections."
Justice Alito dissented, and he was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Alito argued that the case presented a good opportunity to consider whether the Elections Clause limits state courts' authority to alter election laws. He took particular issue with the North Carolina Supreme Court's use of "congeries of state constitutional provisions" to declare unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, despite "no reference" to partisan gerrymandering in them.
The case from Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, Republican-aligned groups in the state court litigation have not yet appealed the state supreme court's Feb. 23 selection of an election map — one of 13 presented to the court. Instead, a different group of Republican voters initiated a new case in federal court asking that all of Pennsylvania's members of congress to elected statewide. In short, the Pennsylvania case is in a messy procedural posture, and that may have dissuaded the justices from getting involved.
Despite today's denials, these cases may not be going away. In a brief addendum to the Pennsylvania case, Justice Alito reminded the parties that they may exercise their right to appeal after the lower federal court has properly ruled on the matter. In the North Carolina case, he wrote that review of the state supreme courts' opinion may be warranted in the future, perhaps after the 2022 mid-term election. Meanwhile, Justice Kavanaugh indicated he would vote to take up a similar case outside the emergency posture in which these cases came.
source: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/07/1084681375/supreme-court-stays-out-of-election-law-for-now
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.