2 years ago
The Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed Republicans’ attempts to block new congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, leaving in place court-imposed redistricting that could boost Democrats in this year’s House elections.
The twin orders, handed down Monday afternoon, are short-term losses for the GOP — but they left open the possibility that at least some of the Republican-appointed justices would embrace a once-fringe legal theory that could drastically reshape the rules under which federal elections are run in some states.
In North Carolina, a state court had struck down a congressional map passed by the GOP-controlled legislature, ruling that it was an egregious partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution. Instead, it imposed a different map that could see Democrats and Republicans split the state’s 14 House seats evenly.
Under the new North Carolina map, five districts would have voted for now-President Joe Biden by a double-digit margin, six would have voted for then-President Donald Trump by that large a margin and another three had margins within 10 points in either direction.
While the high court rejected Republicans’ attempt to have the initial map reinstated, three of the justices dissented. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that he found compelling Republicans’ claim that the state courts have no business interfering in congressional redistricting.
In recent years, some conservative attorneys and scholars have argued that, despite a long history of state agencies administering elections and state courts interpreting their statutes and constitutions, it’s state legislatures that have the sole power to make any changes to election administration and redistricting because the U.S. Constitution makes a specific reference to legislatures.
“This Clause could have said that these rules are to be prescribed 'by each State,' which would have left it up to each State to decide which branch, component, or officer of the state government should exercise that power, as States are generally free to allocate state power as they choose,” Alito wrote in a dissent. “But that is not what the Elections Clause says. Its language specifies a particular organ of a state government, and we must take that language seriously.”
Alito, who was appointed to the court by then-President George W. Bush, was joined in his dissent by two other conservative justices: George H.W. Bush appointee Clarence Thomas and Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch.
Another Trump appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote separately to say the court should decide whether the power to redistrict rests solely with state legislatures, but only as a matter of regular order and not before the 2022 elections are held under the new maps. Unlike Alito and the other two dissenters, Kavanaugh declined to tip his hand how he might rule, writing that “both sides have advanced serious arguments on the merits.”
The court’s two other GOP appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not note their dissent from the North Carolina ruling.
The Republican effort in Pennsylvania was turned aside without comment from the justices. Unlike in North Carolina, Pennsylvania never enacted a congressional map. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed a map drawn by the GOP-controlled state legislature, and the state Supreme Court stepped in to resolve the impasse.
Pennsylvania’s new map mostly left intact the previous map, which was also drawn by the state Supreme Court, after it threw out Republicans’ district lines in 2018. But the court did eliminate one Republican-held district. GOP Rep. Fred Keller said last month he will retire from the House instead of challenging one of his Republican colleagues.
The Supreme Court is still considering whether to block Wisconsin’s new congressional map. Republicans there asked the high court on Monday to reverse the state Supreme Court, which last week selected district lines drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who had vetoed the GOP-controlled state legislature’s congressional map. Barrett, to whom the appeal was filed, has asked the parties to file briefs in the case this week.
English (US)