Justices skeptical of states elections case

At least WASHINGTON — six Supreme Court justices sound skeptical of making a broad ruling that would leave state legislatures virtually unchecked when making rules for elections for Congress and the presidency.

In arguments Wednesday, both liberal and conservative members of the high court appeared to take issue with the main thrust of a chal- lenge asking them to essen- tially eliminate the power of state courts to strike down legislature-drawn, gerryman- dered congressional districts on grounds that they violate state constitutions.

Republicans from North Carolina who brought the case to the high court argue that a provision of the U.S. Constitution known as the elections clause gives state lawmakers virtually total con- trol over the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections, including redistricting, cutting state courts out of the process.

The Republicans are advancing a concept called the “independent legislature theory,” never before adopted by the Supreme Court but cited approvingly by four conservative justices.

A broad ruling could threaten hundreds of election laws, require separate rules for federal and state elections on the same ballot and lead to new efforts to redraw congressional districts.

“This is a theory with big consequences,” Justice Elena Kagan said, allowing for the “most extreme forms of gerrymandering from legislatures.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the outcome sought by North Carolina Republicans would leave judges with “difficult lines to draw.”

The decision in the North Carolina case also might suggest how the justices would deal with another part of the Constitution — not at issue in the current case — that gives legislatures the authority to decide how presidential electors are appointed.