The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed a case involving a challenge to North Carolina's congressional districting map. Several plaintiffs claimed that the map was an impermissible partisan gerrymander favoring Republican candidates.
The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, commenting that the state legislature intentionally drew the map to benefit Republicans.
"The Supreme Court erred by holding that state courts have the authority to draw up boundaries for congressional districts or change election procedures for federal elections—essentially replacing elected representatives,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said in a statement released by the organization on June 27. "Worse, the decision is based on nebulous arguments that election maps and procedures violate state constitutional provisions, when those provisions are vague and allow legislatures considerable leeway.”
The central question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether state legislatures, under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, have the authority to establish rules for federal elections without being restricted by state law; according to court documents. The court clarified that while the Elections Clause requires state legislatures to set rules for federal elections, Congress can make or alter regulations except for the selection of senators.
The Supreme Court also addressed whether state legislatures are shielded from state court review under the Elections Clause, the court documents said. It emphasized the long-standing duty of courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts. Historical examples and support for judicial review during the Constitutional Convention were cited in the court’s opinion.
The court rejected the argument that the Elections Clause creates an exception to judicial review, emphasizing that state legislatures are bound by both state and federal constitutional provisions. The court concluded that state legislatures' authority under the Elections Clause is limited by state constitutional provisions based on historical practice and federalism principles.
The Supreme Court firmly asserted that state courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause, the documents said. But federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review. State courts should not exceed the ordinary bounds of judicial review and infringe upon the role specifically reserved for state legislatures by Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
While the U.S. Supreme Court did not address whether the North Carolina Supreme Court exceeded those limits in this case, it affirmed the judgment of the state high court as it was unnecessary to decide on that matter.
