The Supreme Court’s rejection of the independent state legislature theory reflects a cautious approach by the conservative majority justices. This theory, proposed by North Carolina Republicans in an attempt to disregard a ruling against their partisan gerrymandering, claimed that only state legislatures had the authority to set federal election rules, excluding other state actors such as courts and governors. This extreme interpretation of the theory, promoted by Donald Trump’s campaign, suggested that state legislatures could overturn federal election results.
However, the theory itself was founded on a flawed understanding of the Constitution and driven by partisan self-interest. Conservative legal activists tried to portray it as “originalism,” despite contradicting a century of precedent and lacking historical evidence. Even one of the documents submitted by the North Carolina GOP was proven to be a hoax, demonstrating the conservative movement’s questionable historical analysis. This highlights undead constitutionalism, where the right-wing selectively interprets the Constitution to fit their ideological agenda.
Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion emphasized that legislatures are bound by both state and federal constitutions and that their power is limited. Justice Clarence Thomas, while considering the case moot due to a conservative shift in the North Carolina Supreme Court, still supported the theory in his dissent. Justice Neil Gorsuch wholly agreed with Thomas, while Justice Samuel Alito joined only the argument on mootness.
Had the North Carolina GOP succeeded in Moore v. Harper, it would have further undermined voting rights and eroded American democracy. It would also have been a dishonest decision by the Supreme Court, which previously recognized the role of state supreme courts and constitutions in combating partisan gerrymandering. The Court’s ruling sends a message that conservative legal activists cannot always rely on five guaranteed votes for their unsupported theories, despite the Court’s conservative majority. While the justices may oblige in some cases, like the recent clash over the Biden administration’s COVID-vaccine mandate and the school-prayer case, they exercise caution in others.
Conservative legal activists may now complain that the Court succumbed to liberal pressure, especially as investigative reporting sheds light on the justices’ connections to right-wing billionaires with ideological interests in the Court. However, criticizing the Court, particularly regarding voting rights, is a legitimate exercise of public scrutiny. Such complaints from Republicans are merely their attempt to prevent political opposition from engaging in politics. The public has the right to question the unelected tribunal that shapes their lives, while conservatives themselves apply pressure through public campaigns and private dealings with justices.
While some may argue that this ruling and a previous decision against racial gerrymandering indicate a retreat from attacking Americans’ self-determination, it is an overstatement. As voting-rights scholar Rick Hasen suggests, Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion provides a new tool for curbing voter-protective rulings by state courts. This is a typical conservative strategy where incremental wins may seem like losses but still chip away at democratic rights. The Roberts Court’s track record on voting rights remains concerning, despite these nuances.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
