Moore v. Harper

The Supreme Court rejected the 'Independent State Legislature' theory, which argued that state legislatures have near-total power over federal election rules. The Court ruled 6-3 that state courts can still review these rules to make sure they follow the state's own constitution. This decision upheld a North Carolina court's power to strike down a congressional map it found to be an illegal partisan gerrymander.

This ruling ensures that state courts and constitutions remain a check on how state politicians draw voting districts or set election rules. Without this check, state legislatures could potentially pass election laws that violate their own state's bill of rights without any local judicial oversight. It protects the role of state judges in protecting voters' rights during federal contests.

The case centered on the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution and whether it gives state legislatures 'independent' power. Historically, state courts have long reviewed election laws, but this theory suggested that legislatures were exempt from such oversight. The Court's decision reaffirms the principle of judicial review (the power of courts to decide if laws are constitutional) established in Marbury v. Madison.

Chief Justice Roberts led a 6-3 majority including the three liberal justices and two other conservatives. They agreed that the Elections Clause does not grant state legislatures exclusive authority to regulate federal elections.

“The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.”

“The question presented in the case was moot, and the writ of certiorari should be dismissed.”

State legislatures do not have 'independent' power over federal elections and must still follow their own state constitutions as interpreted by state courts.

While state courts can review election laws, the Supreme Court noted they cannot 'sidestep federal law' or go too far in their interpretations. Future cases will likely test the exact boundary of when a state court's ruling oversteps its authority. Federal courts will still have a limited role in overseeing how state courts apply these rules.

It is the idea that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the sole power to regulate federal elections. The Court decided this theory is wrong because legislatures are still bound by their state constitutions.

Voters can continue to challenge unfair voting maps in state courts using their state's constitution. This keeps a legal path open for citizens to fight maps that they believe are rigged by politicians.

The Court said state courts cannot 'transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review' when handling election cases. However, they declined to set a specific standard for when a state court goes too far.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito argued that the case was 'moot' (no longer a live legal dispute). They believed the Court should have dismissed the case entirely because the underlying state court situation had changed.

The ruling reinforces checks and balances by ensuring no single branch of state government has unchecked power over federal elections. It maintains the traditional role of the judiciary in reviewing the legality of legislative actions.