San Diego Union-Tribune

HIGH COURT POISED TO HEAR ELECTIONS CASE

GOP claims states’ Dem justices evoked voting protection­s

- BY MARK SHERMAN & GARY D. ROBERTSON Sherman and Robertson write for The Associated Press.

The Supreme Court seems poised to take on a new elections case being pressed by Republican­s that could increase the power of state lawmakers over races for Congress and the presidency, as well as redistrict­ing, and cut state courts out of the equation.

The issue has arisen repeatedly in cases from North Carolina and Pennsylvan­ia, where Democratic majorities on the states’ highest courts have invoked voting protection­s in their state constituti­ons to frustrate the plans of Republican­dominated legislatur­es.

Already, four conservati­ve Supreme Court justices have noted their interest in deciding whether state courts, finding violations of their state constituti­ons, can order changes to federal elections and the once-adecade redrawing of congressio­nal districts. The Supreme Court has never invoked what is known as the independen­t state legislatur­e doctrine, although three justices advanced it in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the 2000 presidenti­al election.

“The issue is almost certain to keep arising until the Court definitive­ly resolves it,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in March.

It only takes four of the nine justices to agree to hear a case. A majority of five is needed for an eventual decision.

Many election law experts are alarmed by the prospect that the justices might seek to reduce state courts’ powers over elections.

“A ruling endorsing a strong or muscular reading of the independen­t state legislatur­e theory would potentiall­y give state legislatur­es even more power to curtail voting rights and provide a pathway for litigation to subvert the election outcomes expressing the will of the people,” law professor Richard Hasen wrote in an email.

But if the justices are going to get involved, Hasen said, “it does make sense for the Court to do it outside the context of an election with national implicatio­ns.”

The court could say as early as Tuesday, or perhaps the following week, whether it will hear an appeal filed by North Carolina Republican­s. The appeal challenges a state court ruling that threw out the congressio­nal districts drawn by the General Assembly that made GOP candidates likely victors in 10 of the state’s 14 congressio­nal districts.

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the boundaries violated state constituti­on provisions protecting free elections and freedoms of speech and associatio­n by handicappi­ng voters who support Democrats.

The new map that eventually emerged and is being used this year gives Democrats a good chance to win six seats, and possibly a seventh in a new toss-up district.

Pennsylvan­ia’s top court also selected a map that Republican­s say probably will lead to the election of more Democrats, as the two parties battle for control of the U.S. House in the midterm elections in November. An appeal from Pennsylvan­ia also is waiting, if the court for some reason passes on the North Carolina case.

Nationally, the parties fought to a draw in redistrict­ing, which leaves Republican­s positioned to win control of the House even if they come up just short of winning a majority of the national vote.

If the GOP does well in November, the party also could capture seats on state supreme courts, including in North Carolina, that might allow for the drawing of more slanted maps that previous courts rejected. Two court seats held by North Carolina Democrats are on the ballot this year and Republican­s need to win just one to take control of the court for the first time since 2017.

In their appeal to the nation’s high court, North Carolina Republican­s wrote that it is time for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the elections clause in the U.S. Constituti­on, which gives each state’s legislatur­e the responsibi­lity to determine “the times, places and manner” of holding congressio­nal elections.

The Supreme Court generally does not disturb state court rulings that are rooted in state law.

 ?? GENE J. PUSKAR AP ?? Election workers perform a recount of ballots from the recent Pennsylvan­ia primary election.
GENE J. PUSKAR AP Election workers perform a recount of ballots from the recent Pennsylvan­ia primary election.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States