- Click here for the article.
- Moore v Harper.
In a major election-law decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that although the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate federal elections, state courts can supervise the legislature’s exercise of that power. By a vote of 6-3, the court rejected the so-called “independent state legislature theory,” holding that the North Carolina Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution when it set aside a congressional map adopted by the state’s legislature.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, in an opinion joined by two of his conservative colleagues, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Thomas would not have reached the “independent state legislature theory” question at all. Instead, he would have dismissed the case as moot – that is, no longer a live controversy.
The dispute began as a challenge to a congressional map adopted by that state’s Republican-controlled legislature in early November 2021. Democratic voters and non-profits argued that the new map was a partisan gerrymander – that is, it was drawn to favor one political party at another’s expense. In particular, they contended, although the state is roughly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters, the new map likely would have given Republicans 10 out of 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
What is the Independent State Legislature Theory?
The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power (such as constitutional conventions or independent commissions). ISL has been ruled against by all Supreme Court cases on the matter; most recently in June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Elections Clause did not give state legislatures sole power over elections, rejecting the independent state legislature theory.
Advocates of ISL had grounded their interpretation in the Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Where state legislatures enact laws that conflict with their state constitutions, including provisions added to those constitutions through ballot initiatives passed by a state's citizens, proponents of ISL believed that state legislation rather than state constitutions take precedence. They also argued that only the federal courts, not state courts, can resolve conflicts between state laws and state constitutions with respect to administration of federal elections within a state.
