WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court grappled with a case stemming from North Carolina Tuesday that could have ripple effects across the country.
- During oral arguments, lawyers for the state Republican leaders argued against the court getting involved
- A lawyer for the League of Women Voters argued that not stepping in would do more damage to the court’s reputation.
- Decisions from the court on the issue of partisan gerrymandering are expected over the summer.
At question: does North Carolina’s congressional map - drawn by Republican state lawmakers - give the GOP too much of a political advantage? Should the court step in?
During oral arguments, lawyers for the state Republican leaders argued against the court getting involved, saying redistricting is a political matter that could tarnish the court’s image.
“This is a matter that should be left up to the legislature,” said North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore in an interview after the Tuesday morning hearing.
But a lawyer for the League of Women Voters argued that not stepping in would do more damage to the court’s reputation.
“Now is the prime time to reassure voters that they are in fact the people who get to decide who occupies that house,” said Allison Riggs, pointing at the U.S. House chamber across the street from the Supreme Court. Riggs is a voting rights lawyer with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
In the courtroom, the liberal justices seemed to embrace arguments that extreme partisan gerrymandering violates constitutional rights. Justice Sonia Sotomayor at one point likened partisan gerrymandering to “discriminating on the basis of a group's speech."
The conservative justices meanwhile expressed some hesitancy about intervening.
One of the underlying questions in the case is how do you determine how much gerrymandering is too much? Although lawyers floated some possible tests, the justices gave no indication they could form a consensus.
Many court-watchers are focusing on Justice Brett Kavanaugh to see what he may do with this case. Kavanaugh replaced Anthony Kennedy, who was considered a possible swing vote on the partisan gerrymander issue.
During arguments, Kavanaugh at times seem to express concern about extreme gerrymandering and its impact on democracy.
However, he also may have showed his cards about how he is leaning on this issue. During the oral arguments, Kavanaugh questioned whether it was necessary for the court to get involved right now. He noted that “there is a fair amount of activity going on in the states on redistricting.”
Some states have created independent commissions to draw maps in attempts to remove politics from the process.
Is an independent commission something that North Carolina’s House speaker would embrace? In an interview, Moore was dubious.
“The problem with appointing an independent commission that is not elected, not directly accountable to the voters, is that ultimately you’re taking that authority away from the voters,” Moore said, arguing that a legislature may be more responsive to the will of the voters than a commission.
As some of the conservative justices noted, those independent commissions have occasionally been introduced through ballot referendum - which is something, Riggs said, that cannot be done in North Carolina.
After the North Carolina case wrapped up, the justices also heard arguments in a partisan gerrymandering case out of Maryland, where a lower court found the Democrats drew congressional boundary lines in a way that was considered unconstitutional.
Decisions from the court on the issue of partisan gerrymandering are expected over the summer.