Legislatively Speaking
By Senator Lena C. Taylor
Lena C. Taylor
Just when you think it can’t get any worse, along comes Moore v. Harper. While you may not be familiar with this case, the issue at the heart of this matter demands your attention. Let me bring you up to speed.
Like Wisconsin, states around the nation recently completed their redistricting process. Like Wisconsin, overt partisan redistricting by North Carolina Republicans heavily gerrymandered a congressional district to tip electoral outcomes in their favor. And like Wisconsin, challenges to their legislative maps ended up before the state’s highest court.
The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the Republican legislative maps violated their state’s constitution. The state’s court drew the maps that were used in their recent elections. With the use of fairer maps, congressional elections yielded a 7-7 split between Republicans and Democrats for congressional seats. Needless to say, those evenhanded maps didn’t sit well with their GOP legislature.
They took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court for relief…….from forced fairness.
Now you might ask, on what grounds could Republicans use to make the case that the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled incorrectly on the maps? They are relying on a concept known as ISL or “independent legislature theory”. It is best described by the Democracy Docket, which explains that ISL “is a right-wing constitutional theory about who has the power to set rules for federal elections. The theory interprets the word “legislature” in the U.S. Constitution to mean that state legislatures — and only state legislatures — can make laws regulating federal elections”.
Democracy Docket goes on to say that “This differs from the standard interpretation, in which “legislature” means the state’s general lawmaking process, which includes the governor’s veto, citizen-led ballot measures and rulings of state courts. By excluding all other parts of the state government, the theory would allow state legislatures to set election rules and congressional maps unchecked — not by governors, state courts, the people or even state constitutions themselves”. Are you concerned yet?
While oral arguments have begun in Moore v. Harper, legal observers are trying to figure out which direction the Supreme Court will go with this argument. In 2019, the high court ruled that federal courts were not the place for challenging partisan congressional maps. Litigants across the country were re-directed to state courts.
If Republicans have their way, they will have the final word on federal elections. Even though state constitutions created state legislatures, those same legislatures would like to render their power more expansive than their own state constitution. State courts have become the only legal forum for challenging the partisan power grab or partisan congressional maps, since the Supreme Court ruled in 2019, that those lawsuits cannot be brought in federal court.
This case has other implications that really would upend our elections and cause partisan chaos. As we wait on a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, we know that conservatives on the court have been unnervingly predictable. Wait, I stand corrected. Recent appointees were put on the court because the GOP felt comfortable that they knew exactly what they would do. I guess we’ll see.