The Supreme Court on Thursday requested additional briefings over a major election law challenging stemming from North Carolina, a signal that the justices might punt on a Republican-backed legal theory that proponents said could limit state courts’ oversight of federal election rules.
Parties involved in the case were asked to file new court documents on the impact of recent actions taken by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The case before the highest court, Moore v. Harper, was argued in December and focuses on whether the state Supreme Court had the authority to toss out GOP-drawn congressional districts last spring. State courts later drew a separate map to serve for the 2022 election.
WHY MARC ELIAS SAYS IT’S ‘GOOD’ NORTH CAROLINA’S TOP COURT WILL REHEAR ELECTION MAP DISPUTE
Since that election, the North Carolina high court has changed from a Democratic to a Republican majority and has decided to revisit some of its previous rulings, including the gerrymandering dispute. Last month, the state court said it would consider whether the GOP-drawn maps were illegal and one other case surrounding voter ID. The state court justices will deliberate the cases on March 14.
Legal experts began to speculate last month that the state court’s reconsideration could make the Moore case before the Supreme Court moot, meaning no decision would be necessary.
In its brief order, the Supreme Court is now asking for North Carolina Republicans, plaintiffs that challenged the maps, and the Biden administration to submit no more than ten pages of supplemental materials by March 20 about what effects the state court’s reconsideration might have had on the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision.
The appeal to the highest court in the land was bought by North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore and asked the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court to consider embracing a legal theory backed by conservative election advocates known as the independent state legislature theory, which could strip or severely limit state courts’ oversight on federal election law.
Supporters of the doctrine, which hasn’t been embraced by the high court in any previous decisions, have suggested the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause intended for legislatures to have the ultimate say over federal election rules and could override limits imposed by state constitutions.
Justices appeared to be searching for a middle ground in December and appeared to support preserving some role for state courts to regulate federal election rules.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The Supreme Court is considering only the initial decision to strike the GOP-drawn maps, not the latter decision upholding a judge-drawn replacement.
North Carolina Republicans are ultimately seeking to reinstate the General Assembly-drawn voting map that likely would secure 10 GOP victories out of the state’s 14 districts.
