The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a broad legal theory that could have given state legislatures virtually unchecked power over federal elections.

What You Need To Know

  • In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the "independent state legislature” theory, which would leave state legislatures virtually unchecked by their state courts when dealing with federal elections

  • The high court's justices ruled that North Carolina’s top court did not overstep its bounds in striking down a congressional districting plan as excessively partisan under state law, rejecting a legal theory that could have transformed elections for Congress and president

  • Chief Justice John Roberts was joined in the majority by conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and the high court's three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson

  • The decision was cheered by voting rights advocates, including former President Barack Obama, who called it a "resounding rejection of the far-right theory peddled by election deniers and extremists seeking to undermine our democracy"

In a 6-3 decision, the high court's justices ruled that North Carolina’s top court did not overstep its bounds in striking down a congressional districting plan as excessively partisan under state law, rejecting a legal theory that could have transformed elections for Congress and president.

"This is a good decision that curbs some of the power of Republican state legislatures and affirms the importance of checks and balances," North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, said in a statement after the ruling was issued. "But Republican legislators in North Carolina and across the country remain a very real threat to democracy as they continue to pass laws to manipulate elections for partisan gain by interfering with the freedom to vote."

The court declined to invoke for the first time the “independent state legislature” theory, which would leave state legislatures virtually unchecked by their state courts when dealing with federal elections.

"The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in Moore v. Harper, also noting that the provision "does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review."

Roberts was joined by conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and the high court's three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The high court did, though, suggest there could be limits on state court efforts to police elections for Congress and president.

In a statement, North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore, who is named in the case, said that the question of the role of state courts in the redistricting process "needed to be settled" by the high court.

"This decision has done just that," Moore said. "I am proud of the work we did to pursue this case to the nation's highest court."

The decision was cheered by voting rights advocates, including former President Barack Obama, who hailed it in a statement as a "resounding rejection of the far-right theory peddled by election deniers and extremists seeking to undermine our democracy."

"And it makes clear that courts can continue defending voters' rights — in North Carolina and in every state," he added.

"Voting is the bedrock of our democracy," Vice President Kamala Harris said of the ruling in a statement. "Today’s decision preserves state courts’ critical role in safeguarding elections and protecting the voice and the will of the American people. We know that more work must to be done to protect the fundamental right to vote and to draw fair maps that reflect the diversity of our communities and our nation."

Harris pledged that she and President Joe Biden will continue to fight for voting rights, calling on Congress to "do their part to protect voters and our democracy" by passing comprehensive legislation to expand access to the ballot box.

North Carolina Rep. Deborah Ross, a Democrat, said in an interview with Spectrum News that she was "heartened" by the decision. Ross, who was in the courtroom for oral arguments in December, recounted that it was "very clear" that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh were "dubious" about the "independent state legislature" theory.

"[They] were dubious about this fringe theory about an 'independent state legislature' that can never, ever be reviewed by the courts, whether it's the state court or the federal court, and they simply thought that could not be in a government that is ruled by checks and balances, and in the system that our framers set up in the Constitution," Ross said.

She said she was "not surprised" by those justices who backed the majority ruling, nor was she shocked by those who dissented.

"I'm also not surprised that the three justices that accepted the 'independent state legislature' theory accepted it, in particular Justice Gorsuch, who was extremely hostile during the arguments," Ross charged. "So the ruling tracks the arguments, but most importantly, the ruling tracks our system of government protects the people and does not allow a state legislature to act like really like the king" 

The practical effect of the decision is minimal in that the North Carolina Supreme Court, under a new Republican majority, already has undone its redistricting ruling.

"Fortunately the current Supreme Court of North Carolina has rectified bad precedent from the previous majority, reaffirming the state constitutional authority of the NC General Assembly," Moore said in his statement. "We will continue to move forward with the redistricting process later this year."

Another redistricting case from Ohio is pending, if the justices want to say more about the issue before next year’s elections.