Andrew Chung, Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters] – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that North Carolina, Pennsylvania could use the electoral maps of their state to repeal those deemed to give Republicans unfair advantage. It improved Democratic chances of retaining control of Congress in November.

The justices denied Republican requests to put on hold lower court rulings that adopted court-drawn boundaries for North Carolina’s 14 House districts and Pennsylvania’s 17 House districts to replace electoral maps devised by Republican-controlled legislatures in the two states.

Republicans want to win control of House which is held in narrow hands by President Joe Biden’s Democratic colleagues, and regain it during the Nov.8 midterm elections. The Pennsylvania and North Carolina party primaries are scheduled for May 17.

A conservative majority of 6-3 judges makes up the court. Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas disapproved of the North Carolina action.

The North Carolina-Pennsylvania disputes are just two of the many court cases nationwide regarding the composition and distribution of electoral districts. These are drawn every decade in order to reflect changes in population, as measured by a recent national census.

These redistrictings are usually done by the political party that is in control. It can also lead to map manipulations for political gain. In 2019, the Supreme Court prohibited federal judges from limiting this practice called partisan-gerrymandering.

LEGAL DOCTRINE

These cases are about a previously marginal legal theory known as the “independent State Legislature doctrine”. If accepted, it would greatly increase the political power over elections. According to this doctrine, Congress, not states courts or any other entity, has authority over electoral rules and the drawing of districts.

North Carolina Republican legislators who challenged the court-drawn maps placed this theory at the forefront, writing in court filing: “The North Carolina judiciary has usurped (the legislature’s) constitutional authority.”

Alito stated that the justices ought to have stopped the court-drawn plan.

Alito said that this case “represents an extraordinarily important and recurring issue of constitutional law: the extent to which a court can reject rules adopted in a state legislature for use during conducting federal elections.”

This doctrine was partly based on the language of the Constitution, which states that “times and places” for federal elections are “shall be determined in every State by the Legislature.”

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh showed sympathy to the views expressed by the dissenters, but claimed that the map was not close enough to the election for it to be blocked. Kavanaugh said that court must address the legal issues in the proper course.

Kavanaugh’s and Alito’s opinions indicated that the court had the necessary four votes to adopt the doctrine and make a ruling possibly limiting the state court’s authority to review federal election regulations set by states prior to the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.

However, it is not clear if all justices will accept this ruling.

“Today’s order is temporary, but statements by four of the justices from state courts are concerning for the capacity of state courts, to uphold right to vote according to state constitutions,” Josh Douglas, University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law voting rights expert, said on Twitter (NYSE:

Bob Phillips is the executive director at Common Cause North Carolina. This group defends the new state districts and called Monday’s actions a victory.

Phillips declared, “We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the legislative defendants’ shameless attempt to impose North Carolina gerrymandered Congress map.”

Following a challenge by Democratic voters and an environmental group to the Republican-drawn North Carolina Map, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck it down. They concluded that it was biased against Democrats and diluting the “fundamental rights of equal voting power”. This violated the state constitution’s free elections and freedom from assembly provisions.

The lower court rejected the legislature’s redrawn map and adopted a map that was drawn by bipartisan experts. Some redistricting analysts claim the map approved by the court includes seven districts that favor Republicans, six favorable to Democrats, and one seat competitive.

Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Tom Wolf rejected a map that had been approved by the legislature. He claimed the arrangement of House districts provided Republicans unfair advantages.

On behalf of Democratic voters, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved an updated map. This map eliminated one Republican-leaning congressional district and created, Republicans claim, a statewide map in favor to Democrats.