Previous 21 / 65 Next

16 MOORE v. HARPER Opinion of the Court plan. 285 U. S. 355, 361 (1932). Following the 15th decennial census in 1930, Minnesota lost one seat in its federal congressional delegation. The State’s legislature divided Minnesota’s then nine congressional districts in 1931 and sent its Act to the Governor for his approval. The Governor vetoed the plan pursuant to his authority under the State’s Constitution. But the Minnesota Secretary of State nevertheless began to implement the legislature’s map for upcoming elections. A citizen sued, contending that the legislature’s map “was a nullity in that, after the Governor’s veto, it was not repassed by the legislature as required by law.” Id., at 362. The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed. In its view, “the authority so given by” the Elections Clause “is unrestricted, unlimited, and absolute.” State ex rel. Smiley v. Holm, 184 Minn. 228, 242, 238 N. W. 494, 501 (1931). The Elections Clause, it held, conferred upon the legislature “the exclusive right to redistrict” such that its actions were “beyond the reach of the judiciary.” Id., at 243, 238 N. W., at 501. We unanimously reversed. A state legislature’s “exercise of . . . authority” under the Elections Clause, we held, “must be in accordance with the method which the State has prescribed for legislative enactments.” Smiley, 285 U. S., at 367. Nowhere in the Federal Constitution could we find “provision of an attempt to endow the legislature of the State with power to enact laws in any manner other than that in which the constitution of the State has provided that laws shall be enacted.” Id., at 368. Smiley relied on founding-era provisions, constitutional structure, and historical practice, each of which we found persuasive. Two States at the time of the founding provided a veto power, restrictions that were “well known.” Ibid. (citing provisions in Massachusetts and New York). Subjecting state legislatures to such a limitation “was no more incongruous with the grant of legislative authority to regulate congressional elections than the fact that the Congress in

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Moore v. Harper

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, § 4, cl. 1)—which provides that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"—vests exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules for federal elections, insulating them from review by state courts applying state constitutional constraints.

Alleged Acts: In 2021, following the 2020 U.S. Census, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a new congressional redistricting map. A group of North Carolina voters and organizations (led by Rebecca Harper) sued in state court, alleging that the map constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the North Carolina Constitution's Free Elections Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Free Speech Clause. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed, holding that the map violated the state constitution, and ordered the legislature to draw a new map. When the legislature failed to produce a compliant map, the state court imposed its own remedial map drawn by a panel of trial court judges. The North Carolina legislature (led by Speaker of the House Timothy K. Moore) then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, invoking the "independent state legislature" theory—the argument that under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures have exclusive and independent authority to set the rules for federal elections, free from review or override by state courts applying state constitutional provisions.

Procedural history: The North Carolina trial court initially ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that the maps violated the state constitution and ordering remedial maps.

Summary: Moore v. Harper was a landmark constitutional case in which the Supreme Court decisively rejected the "independent state legislature" theory. The theory would have given state legislatures nearly unchecked power over federal election rules, free from state court oversight or state constitutional limits. The Court's 6–3 ruling confirmed that state legislatures, when regulating federal elections under the Elections Clause, remain bound by state constitutions and subject to state judicial review—preserving the system of checks and balances within state governments over the conduct of federal elections.

Conclusion: In a 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory and affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's ruling. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. State legislatures remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review under state constitutional provisions when prescribing rules for federal elections. The Court relied on historical practice and precedent, particularly Smiley v. Holm, to conclude that the term "Legislature" in the Elections Clause refers to the state's lawmaking apparatus as a whole—including the constraints of the state constitution and the role of state courts—rather than the legislature acting independently of other state institutions.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Maps and Districting
Judicial Independence

Applicable Law(s): Elections Clause (Art. I, Section 4) of the United States Constitution, and North Carolina Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 27, 2023

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.8906

Longitude: -77.0047

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf

Primary Documents

Moore v. Harper.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Moore v. Harper

Primary Documents

Notifications