In 2021, the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature passed a partisan gerrymander, which is an adjustment of district borders in order to intentionally benefit one political party over another in the context of the structure of the electoral college; in this case, the Republican party.
In this case, it would essentially secure the Red win of North Carolina in the 2022 congressional elections, but it was overturned by the state court and has been taken on by SCOTUS in June 2022 because of its significance in the future of state-conducted elections.
To illustrate the situation of gerrymandering, even if Democrats and Republicans got the same amount of votes, 10 out of the 14 congressional seats would still be given to Republicans. Gerrymandering has been used by political parties to secure partisan wins in the past, and is a big threat to democracy as it does not accurately reflect a state’s voter scene.
This new map was debated in state courts among voters, since SCOTUS has ruled that federal courts cannot judge partisan gerrymandered maps. The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected the new map. The contention in the form of Supreme Court case Moore v. Harper (legislators vs the state court) is hinged in independent state legislature theory: referencing the Elections Clause, which basically renders federal elections a state power. In reference to the Elections Clause, the usage of the word “Legislature” is the core of the debate. Does it mean that state legislatures are fully in charge of elections? Does it mean, as the first source points out, that “When it comes to federal elections, legislators would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts couldn’t stop them?”
If SCOTUS rules in favor of the legislators, it would be so. The first source (which seems more biased towards SCOTUS overturning independent state legislature theory) illustrates the outcome of adopting the idea of independent state legislature theory: state constitutional restrictions on how elections should be run, as well as rules set in place for fairness, would be rescinded. It would make it “nightmar[ishly]” possible that state legislatures could just ignore all the rules and pick the winner themselves, with barely a glance at the popular vote. This theory was one that Trump and his supporters rallied behind in an attempt to overturn the election, calling on states to determine the winner of the election themselves. According to former federal judge J. Michael Luttig in this first source, this theory is just the “Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election.” It essentially diminishes the voting power of the people and gives more power to the people’s representatives, entrenched with the ideals of a republic versus a democracy: should the people’s opinions matter more, or their higher, mightier, and wiser reps, as the Framers meant it to be?
Another source illustrates the opposite perspective: conservative-run organization Honest Elections Project claims that the “2020 election was marred by… undemocratic efforts to use courts to weaken voting safeguards and skew the rules for partisan advantage.” PBS references the official statement from the executive director of this project, who claims that the opposing side “ignore[s] the history and text of the Constitution, sew[s] chaos and confusion, and put[s] faith in elections at risk.” I see this statement as relatively ironic and nebulous, as the problem that they are opposing reform to is gerrymandering, which is the glaringly clear culprit of the loss of election integrity.
It essentially boils down to the interpretation of the Constitution. Though SCOTUS has had a history of turning down the independent state legislature theory, the stakes, of the balance in states’ election powers, are high this time, and three justices have historically supported this theory. The consequences of allowing state legislatures to have full control over federal elections, including inevitable manipulation of voter outcome in the form of widespread gerrymandering, seems detrimental to democracy, a core value of the country.
Source 1: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/moore-v-harper-explained
ISLT explained: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained
Source 2: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-the-outcome-of-moore-v-harper-could-impact-federal-elections
No comments:
Post a Comment