(The Center Square) — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the North Carolina redistricting case Moore v. Harper on Dec. 7, the court announced this week.
The case, which centers on the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in February to void the General Assembly’s congressional map for 2022 in favor of one drawn by “special masters,” is attracting national interest for the precedent it could set for states dealing with similar situations.
Republicans in the General Assembly have cited the Election Clause of the U.S. Constitution that gives state legislatures authority over the “times, places, and manner” of federal elections, and contend state courts have limited authority to reject maps approved by lawmakers.
“The text of the Constitution directly answers the question presented in this case,” attorneys for North Carolina lawmakers wrote in an August brief. “The Elections Clause provides, in unambiguous language, that the manner of federal elections shall ‘be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.’
“Yet in the decision below, the North Carolina Supreme Court invalidated the state legislature’s duly enacted congressional map and decreed that the 2022 election and all upcoming congressional elections in the State were not to be held in the ‘Manner’ ‘prescribed … by the Legislature thereof,’ but rather in the manner prescribed by the state’s judicial branch.”
The North Carolina Supreme Court has cited the state Constitution to support the decision to reject lawmakers’ congressional map.
The announced date for oral arguments comes a little over a month after attorneys general from 13 states filed a brief in support of North Carolina Republicans that explained what the case could mean for other states. Attorneys general who signed on to the brief represent Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.
The “primary argument,” the brief read, is “the text of the Election Clause matters and that its enforcement by federal courts poses no threat to state sovereignty in our federal system,” The Carolina Journal reports.
“The Framers (of the U.S. Constitution) could have assigned the power over federal elections in the first instance to states, without specifying which entity of state government would have primary responsibility,” the brief argues. “But recognizing that prescribing the times, places, and manner of federal elections is fundamentally a legislative role, the Framers specified that this delegated power would be exercised by ‘the Legislature thereof.’”
The brief from the attorneys general is among 17 filed with the Supreme Court last month, including 14 in support of North Carolina lawmakers, according to the Journal.
State legislators in a dozen states, along with numerous groups and nonprofits have also filed briefs in support, including Citizens United, APA Watch, America First Legal Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, Honest Elections Project, Taxpayers for Honest Elections, America’s Future Inc., the Republican National Committee, the Public Interest Legal Foundation and others.
Democrats and leftist activists are expected to file written arguments in the case by a Wednesday deadline, and a decision — which could impact North Carolina’s 2024 elections — is expected by next June, the Journal reports.
