Third Way: A 2023 Supreme Court Victory For Voters

Element5 Digital

2023 was a year filled with gut-wrenching stories regarding political strife and policies that have hurt our nation. However, this year was also filled with many uplifting and inspiring moments politically that have moved our nation forward. One such important moment came from the Supreme Court, which ruled in Moore v. Harper to restrict state legislatures’ ability to gerrymander and pushed for oversight and accountability when redrawing district maps.

This is an incredibly important win, especially because it demonstrates a shift in the Court towards voter protections. Furthermore, this decision signifies that extreme partisans in state governments cannot freely gerrymander; rather, they will face accountability for their actions. This ruling is a step forward because it is an important victory for the safeguarding of democracy and our fundamental right to choose our leaders.

Case Background

Moore v. Harper began in North Carolina in 2021 when a group of voters challenged new gerrymandered congressional maps drawn by the Republican-controlled state legislature.

In February of 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the legislators created the maps for an unfair partisan advantage and needed to redraw the maps to be fairer. The legislature appealed to the Supreme Court in the hopes they would overturn this ruling.

The North Carolina state government argued on the basis of independent state legislature theory which states the legislature can enact federal election laws without checks and balances. It is a maximalist interpretation of the elections clause in the constitution.

This clause, in Article 1 Section 4 states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.”

In its most extreme interpretations, the independent state legislature theory would prohibit any entity from setting rules or making decisions regarding federal elections, other than the state legislature.

Case Decision

On June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the maximalist interpretation in a 6-3 majority. They used clear case precedent to argue the elections clause does not give state legislatures unchecked authority to pass laws regarding federal elections and to draw congressional maps.

The legislature is subject to normal legislative processes and checks and balances, which include vetoes, people-powered ballot initiatives, and a review by state courts.

Effects of the Decision

This decision was incredibly important. One ramification of this decision is that it limited the ability of political extremists intent on allowing partisan state legislators free rein to subvert elections. It ensures the protection of election safeguards and the ability of local governments to run elections as they do.

This important ruling preserves the authority, flexibility and discretion needed by county governments to fulfil their duty to administer free and fair elections and maintain the integrity and security of elections at the local level.

This decision preserves local jurisdiction because the independent legislature theory would take authority regarding election decisions away from everyone except the state legislature.

This ruling helps to ensure the continued efficiency and fairness of elections by allowing local governments to continue to make the day-to-day decisions needed.

Practically, it helped to limit partisan influence and allow elections to continue to operate smoothly. These outcomes, however, are not the only important results of the Supreme Court decision.

History of Gerrymandering

This decision is also a step in the right direction for the Supreme Court because of how the Court has historically dealt with gerrymandering, redistricting, and voting rights cases.

Redistricting has been around since the beginning of the nation and allows legislators to redraw district maps after the census is done to reflect new populations. Since 1812, however, legislatures have been using redistricting to increase their political power, hurting the party not in power.

Gerrymandering involves splitting districts of the opposing parties or shoving all opposing party districts into as few as possible in order to dilute political power of opponents. By doing this, legislators choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their legislators.

Experts believe gerrymandering has increased polarization between political parties because it diminishes the power of moderates. Gerrymandering has huge ramifications for elections and political parties.

The Supreme Court’s Role

The Supreme Court has shifted its approach to gerrymandering over the years. For years, the Supreme Court has attempted to limit the power of gerrymandering. They ruled that one person must be equal to one vote, when redistricting, the districts must be of equal size, redistricting cannot be racially discriminatory, and that redistricting cannot favor one particular party.

However, in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that gerrymandering for party advantage cannot be challenged in federal court. This undercut previous rulings and gave free rein to legislators to unfairly increase the majority party's power.

Furthermore, because there is a correlation between party preference and race, legislators were now able to defend racially discriminatory maps on the grounds that it was discriminatory on the basis of political parties.

This ruling also set up legislators to redistrict without fear of oversight after the 2020 Census. Many people, therefore, worried when the Supreme Court took the Moore v. Harper case, fearing it would further increase the power of partisan legislators to hurt election legitimacy.

The Supreme Court ruling, therefore, was shocking as the Court diluted the power of legislators to gerrymander, setting an important limit on the scope of state legislators’ power. The court has not always protected voting rights, so this demonstrates an important step forward.

Moreover, this case was ruled by judges of both liberal and conservative backgrounds, showing how this issue transcended party lines. This ruling prevents extreme measures from being taken to ensure a party can stay in power. It demonstrates, once more, the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting voting rights and limiting the scope of gerrymandering.

This decision by the Supreme Court was an important step forward towards protecting voting rights and perhaps undoing some of their more recent precedents. It sets an important standard which blocks state legislatures from behaving unilaterally.

The Supreme Court demonstrated their commitment to democracy and protecting voters with this important outcome. In these polarizing times, it was essential for the courts to limit partisan abilities to harm democratic institutions and it was a much-needed victory for 2023.