Previous 5 / 65 Next

Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 5 Syllabus bound by state constitutional restraints when exercising authority under the Elections Clause. Two state constitutional provisions adopted shortly after the founding expressly constrained state legislative action under the Elections Clause. See Del. Const., Art. VIII, §2 (1792); Md. Const., Art. XIV (1810). In addition, multiple state constitutions at the time of the founding regulated the “manner” of federal elections by requiring that “elections shall be by ballot.” See, e.g., Ga. Const., Art. IV, §2. Moreover, the Articles of Confederation—from which the Framers borrowed—provided that “delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct.” Art. V. Around the time the Articles were adopted, multiple States regulated the appointment of delegates, suggesting that the Framers did not understand that language to insulate state legislative action from state constitutional provisions. See, e.g., Del. Const., Art. XI (1776). Pp. 24–26. 3. Although the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review. This Court has an obligation to ensure that state court interpretations of state law do not evade federal law. For example, States “may not sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing traditional property interests.” Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 167. While the Court does not adopt a test by which state court interpretations of state law can be measured in cases implicating the Elections Clause, state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections. The Court need not decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause, as petitioners did not meaningfully present the issue in this Court. Pp. 26–29. 380 N. C. 317, 868 S. E. 2d 499, affirmed. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SOKAGAN, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which GORSUCH, J., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined as to Part I. TOMAYOR,

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