The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday laid out its divisions on an electoral law case that could revolutionize the organization of elections for the White House and Congress.
• Also read: A revolution in election law is under discussion in the Supreme Court of the United States
• Also read: The Supreme Court can authorize some companies to exclude homosexual customers
• Also read: The Supreme Court orders Biden to cancel student debt
At the center of the debates: a new legal theory proposed by North Carolina Republican congressmen that, if adopted, would free up 50 state legislators to organize federal elections.
Voting by mail, office hours, documents to be submitted for registration on the electoral rolls…: The Constitution entrusted the elected representatives of each State with the task of determining the “time, place, and procedure” of the ballot.
Their laws, however, are subject to review by local courts. This is what North Carolina elected officials want to change. For them, the Constitution “puts the organization of federal elections in the hands of state legislators and no one else” at this level.
During the hearing, the court’s three progressive justices strongly opposed this principle called “Independent State Legislators.” In particular, Elena Kagan warned that she aims to “throw away the balance of power” when the United States “needs it most.”
American democracy has been undermined by former President Donald Trump’s efforts, with the support of some local elected officials, to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election.
Some seem inclined to validate the new theory. After removing concerns about democracy, Neil Gorsuch noted that laws passed by local elected officials would still be subject to review by federal courts.
But others sounded more skeptical. Chief Justice John Roberts noted the fluctuations in the position of elected officials in North Carolina, who had argued at the outset of the proceedings, that governors could not overrule election laws, before changing their minds.
For his part, conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh appeared to be looking for ways to acquit elected officials without checking their denomination. “Isn’t there a more limited alternative to deciding in your favour?” their lawyer asked.
Concretely, their asylum stems from the 2020 Census which recorded a population increase in North Carolina. As a result, the state gained an additional seat in the House of Representatives and legislators redrew congressional district boundaries.
In February, the state Supreme Court overturned their map, ruling it in favor of the GOP by pooling Democratic voters in certain districts to dilute their vote elsewhere. Map two didn’t seem to do much justice, so the local high court hired an independent expert to take care of it.
Then local lawmakers, led by House Republican leader Tim Moore, turned to the US Supreme Court, blaming the state judiciary for usurping their turn.
The Supreme Court refused to intervene urgently and the expert ticket served well in November’s midterm elections, which allowed for the election of seven representatives from each party. but, though not bound to do so, she agreed to study the subject on the merits.
Ahead of the hearing, President Joe Biden’s government, a Democratic state, senators and major civil rights groups wrote to the court to discourage adoption of the new theory, which it deems dangerous to democracy.
“This extreme interpretation of the Constitution will help local elected officials disenfranchise some voters, divide congressional districts as they see fit, and potentially sabotage the outcome of the election,” Sophia Lynn Lakin told reporters. American Civil Liberties Union.
Their troubling rhetoric was deemed “absurd” by the Republican Party. He argued in a separate argument that proving North Carolina’s elected officials “would not give the state legislatures carte blanche.”
But among conservatives, the theory is not unanimous. “Our political system will suffer greatly if you let the district slaughter run out of control,” said Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former Republican governor of California.
The court must issue its decision before June 30.
