The NPR Politics Podcast - Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Threatened Election Integrity

Episode Date: June 27, 2023

The court ruled that state constitutions can protect voting rights in federal elections and state courts can enforce those provisions. Three conservative joined with the court's liberal wing in a 6-to-3 decision.This episode: political correspondent Susan Davis, voting correspondent Hansi Lo Wang, and national political correspondent Mara Liasson.The podcast is produced by Elena Moore and Casey Morell. Our editor is Eric McDaniel. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi. Unlock access to this and other bonus content by supporting The NPR Politics Podcast+. Sign up via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Leslie from Boston, Massachusetts. Currently, I'm trying to find a way to fit my hiking boots into my carry-on suitcase for my first trip to Iceland. Ooh, Iceland. This podcast was recorded at... 12.07 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27th. Things may have changed by the time you hear it, but I'll still be frolicking in the midnight sun.

Okay, now here's the show. Iceland seems like a lovely place to vacation in the summertime. Nice. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. I'm Hansi Luong. I cover voting. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. And the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a legal theory that state lawmakers have a special power over how federal elections are run that cannot be checked by state courts or state constitutions. Hansi, this is a case that

you've been tracking very closely, and it's a case that was very closely tracked among election watchers. Can you remind us who brought this case to the court and what was the argument they were making? This case known as Moore Moore v. Harper, was brought by Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina. They had approved a new map of congressional voting districts for North Carolina. The map was challenged in the state courts all the way to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which struck down that congressional map because the court's majority at that time found that it violated multiple parts of North Carolina's state constitution by giving Republican candidates an unfair advantage through partisan gerrymandering. And the Republican state lawmakers, they didn't back down. They went to the U.S. Supreme Court, tried to argue that their congressional map should not be shut down by a North Carolina court

because it's a map for federal elections. And they cited this once fringe legal idea called the independent state legislature theory. And it claims the U.S. Constitution gives state lawmakers a special power to determine how federal elections are run, things like how congressional districts are redrawn, how voters can cast their ballots. And that power, according to this idea, is independent of state constitutions and state courts. Meaning that there was no check and balance at all? Meaning that there would be no checks or balances from state constitutions or state courts. But it did acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution says that Congress can step in and override any election rules that state lawmakers make about federal elections.

So today, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly rejected this idea of the independent state legislature. A 6-3 decision included all of the court's liberal justices. What was the majority's reasoning in the case? Right. This is a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was joined by conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices. And basically, they said, this theory is not how the supreme court has interpreted the u.s constitution past rulings by the supreme court the u.s supreme court has upheld this idea that state courts can review congressional maps and any other laws about federal elections made by state lawmakers and that

the u.s constitution's elections clause i'm quoting and that the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause, I'm quoting here from the majority opinion, quote, does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law. You know, it's worth noting here, though, that the last paragraph of the majority opinion, there is a kind of warning to state courts that when they're ruling on matters regarding federal elections, that they cannot exceed the, quote, bounds of ordinary judicial review. But the majority here, they didn't really get into what exactly those bounds are. And perhaps that's a legal case for another day. So, Hansi, in effect, were they saying that state courts should defer to the legislatures but just not cut themselves altogether out of the action?

In a way, they were saying that. But at the same time, they're saying, you know, state courts have a role to play to make sure that state law, state constitutions are being upheld. Hansi, can you explain why election watchers were so worried about this case and what the outcome could be? This case, a lot of folks were worried because it could have resulted in a potential endorsement of some version of that independent state legislature theory and it could have opened then a kind of Pandora's box. It could have led to more state lawmakers strategizing new ways to get more political power for their political party.

Could have led to more lawsuits, a lot of open legal questions, more requests for the U.S. Supreme Court to review state court rulings about federal elections, maybe make ballot measures for independent redistricting commissions and automatic voter registration, expanding voting by mail, make all that kind of in a legal gray area that then the Supreme Court may have had to step in. And that could have set up a situation where, you know, the upcoming elections, 2024 presidential race could have really been destabilized if some version of this theory was endorsed, which it was not today. But still, state Supreme Courts could approve all those kinds of rules if they wanted to,

as they have in many states. In other words, if a state Supreme Court wanted to approve a legislature's effort to make voting harder, they still can. Isn't that correct? That is correct. This case is really about what role state courts should and can play in this review process. And this theory, the Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina were trying to take out state courts from this equation, take out state constitutions. But now that there's been confirmation from the Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, state courts, state constitutions still have a role. Those courts, those constitutions, they can still potentially be manipulated in some

way. Hansi, this is technical, but it's important to understand three conservative justices joined a dissenting opinion that was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. But this opinion didn't embrace the idea of the independent state legislature theory, correct? Right. They didn't go into saying, we support this theory. Instead, this is a dissenting opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, that they believe this case is just no longer relevant. And the reason is because there's some unusual backstory here. The North Carolina Supreme Court, which issued this ruling that the Supreme Court was reviewing, it changed after the

midterm elections last year. It became a Republican majority. It used to be a Democratic majority. And they vote for their justices, the state Supreme Court justices in North Carolina. So Republicans took over the court's majority in North Carolina, this North Carolina Supreme Court, and they made this unusual move to hear the case again. And this year, they decided to throw out that earlier ruling. A lot of procedural mess there. And basically, it made this case arguably moot, just no longer legally relevant. And really, there were arguments that the Supreme Court should not really issue an opinion here because is this really a live case, an active case? And that's really the point that Justice Clarence Thomas is dissenting opinion here is pointing out.

All right. Let's take a quick break and we'll talk more about this case when we're back. And Mara, I can't even count at this point how many conversations we've had in the past couple years about how democratic norms and democratic institutions and our democratic way of life are being tested. And in this case, it seems to me that the Supreme Court essentially upheld the status quo, upheld the way our democracy currently functions. And that seems notable to point two as well. Republicans to give institutions that they control, in this case, many Southern state legislatures, as it has been throughout American history, to give those state legislatures more control. In this case, maybe you could argue they overreached by trying to push this independent state legislature theory. Now, this theory has been bouncing around for a long time, since 2000 in Bush v. Gore. And they talked about this theory. They never had to actually use it because the Supreme Court was on their side.

But I don't think this fight is over. I think there are going to be many more attempts to give institutions that Republicans control outsized power when it comes to elections. Well, there's also been, Hansi, as you have well documented, a significant push, particularly in Republican-led states, to change voting laws, to change the way the process works. I mean, this is just one maybe pebble in a larger sea of a conversation about voting access and who decides things like redistricting, things like, you know, the power of state legislatures. Right. I think one thing, you know, we've been talking about kind of big ideas about this case. Another way to talk about this case is about redistricting, congressional redistricting. And the bottom line here is that there needs to be a new map in North Carolina. And the North Carolina state Supreme Court's Republican majority have set up that now the Republican controlled state legislature has another chance here to redraw their map. But they're going to redraw that congressional map with potentially a state Supreme Court playing referee here that is politically aligned in terms of the Republican majority in the state Supreme Court, Republican-controlled state legislature.

We'll have to see what kind of map comes out of that process. This is the reason that so much more attention and money has been poured into state Supreme Court races in states that elect their justices on their state Supreme Courts. You saw that in Wisconsin. You know, $42 million was spent because state Supreme Courts now are going to play an outsized role in all of these big issues about democracy. And this case, I think, is also relevant to 2024 when put in the context of the Alabama voting rights decision case in which states could be redrawing their lines for congressional House seats before 2024. There's a separate push in New York for different legal reasons to redraw their lines, and it

could dramatically shake up the battlefield for control of the U.S. House and could make it very much in play next year. So all of these things connected still do have a pretty big impact. All right, we'll leave it there for today. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. I'm Hansi LeWong. I cover voting. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.