Photo: Clay Banks
On Monday, the US Supreme Court permitted North Carolina and Pennsylvania electoral maps authorized by state courts to use in place of the ones to have supposedly given Republicans biased advantages. As a result, it facilitates Democratic opportunities of retaining the influence of the US House of Representatives in November.
The jury rejected Republican appeals to postpone lower court verdicts that assumed court-drawn extremities for the 14 and 17 House districts of North Carolina and Pennsylvania, respectively, to change electoral maps designed by Republican-swayed legislatures in both states.
Republicans are looking to repossess control of the House, barely won by President Joe Biden’s co-Democrats, in the November 8 midterm elections. May 17 will see party primaries in Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
The court possessed a 6–3 conservative majority. Conservative judges Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch objected to the action regarding North Carolina.
The North Carolina and Pennsylvania conflict are only two of the many court wars all over the country over the structure of electoral districts last taken in 2020. Every decade, electoral districts are redrafted to show population changes determined in a national census.
In most states, the restructure is conducted by the party in power, which can result in map exploitation for partisan benefit. In 2019, the Supreme Court banned federal justices from restraining the practice of partisan gerrymandering.
“The North Carolina courts have usurped (the legislature’s) constitutional authority,” wrote the North Carolina Republicans in a court document.
The Republicans referred to the “independent state legislature doctrine”—a once-marginal legal theory. It is getting attention in conservative legal circles and, if passed, would extensively expand politician power over elections.
They have been subjected to the doctrine that the US Constitution grants legislatures, not state courts or other bodies of the law, control over election rules, such as the drafting of electoral districts.
According to Alito, the judges should have obstructed the court-drawn map.
“This case presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law, namely, the extent of a state court’s authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections,” wrote Alito.
Opinions expressed by CEO Weekly contributors are their own.