SCOTUS Weighs Election Case            12/04 10:31

   The Supreme Court is about to confront a new elections case, a 
Republican-led challenge asking the justices for a novel ruling that could 
significantly increase the power of state lawmakers over elections for Congress 
and the presidency.

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is about to confront a new elections 
case, a Republican-led challenge asking the justices for a novel ruling that 
could significantly increase the power of state lawmakers over elections for 
Congress and the presidency.

   The court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case from North Carolina, 
where Republican efforts to draw congressional districts heavily in their favor 
were blocked by a Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court because the 
GOP map violated the state constitution.

   A court-drawn map produced seven seats for each party in last month's 
midterm elections in highly competitive North Carolina.

   The question for the justices is whether the U.S. Constitution's provision 
giving state legislatures the power to make the rules about the "times, places 
and manner" of congressional elections cuts state courts out of the process.

   "This is the single most important case on American democracy -- and for 
American democracy -- in the nation's history," said former federal judge 
Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative who has joined the legal team 
defending the North Carolina court decision.

   The Republican leaders of North Carolina's legislature told the Supreme 
Court that the Constitution's "carefully drawn lines place the regulation of 
federal elections in the hands of state legislatures, Congress and no one else."

   Three conservative justices already have voiced some support for the idea 
that the state court had improperly taken powers given by the Constitution when 
it comes to federal elections. A fourth has written approvingly about limiting 
the power of state courts in this area.

   But the Supreme Court has never invoked what is known as the independent 
state legislature theory. It was, though, mentioned in a separate opinion by 
three conservatives in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the 2000 presidential 
election.

   If the court were to recognize it now, opponents of the concept argue, the 
effects could be much broader than just redistricting.

   The most robust ruling for North Carolina Republicans could undermine more 
than 170 state constitutional provisions, over 650 state laws delegating 
authority to make election policies to state and local officials, and thousands 
of regulations down to the location of polling places, according to the Brennan 
Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

   Luttig, who advised former Vice President Mike Pence that he had no 
authority to reject electoral votes following the 2020 election, is among 
several prominent conservatives and Republicans who have lined up against the 
broad assertion that legislatures can't be challenged in state courts when they 
make decisions about federal elections, including congressional redistricting.

   That group includes former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, law 
professor Steven Calabresi, a founder of the conservative Federalist Society 
and Benjamin Ginsberg, a longtime lawyer for Republican candidates and the 
party.

   "Unfortunately, because of ongoing and widespread efforts to sow distrust 
and spread disinformation, confidence in our elections is at a low ebb," 
Ginsberg wrote in a Supreme Court filing. "The version of the independent state 
legislature theory advanced by Petitioners in this case threatens to make a bad 
situation much worse, exacerbating the current moment of political polarization 
and further undermining confidence in our elections."

   The arguments are taking place a day after the final contest of the 2022 
midterms, the Georgia Senate runoff between Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and 
Republican Herschel Walker.

   In that contest, state courts ruled in favor of Democrats to allow for 
voting on the Saturday before the election, over the objections of Republicans.

   Jason Snead, of the conservative Honest Elections Project, said the case is 
an opportunity for the high court to rein in out-of-control state courts which 
are being pushed by Democratic attorneys to effectively create new rules 
governing voting, including the Georgia example.

   "We've seen a fairly pervasive attempt to use courts to rewrite election 
laws if those laws don't suit partisan agendas," Snead said in a call with 
reporters. "That's not something we want to see when it flies in the face of 
the Constitution."

   He is among proponents of the high court's intervention who argue the case 
doesn't represent "a threat to democracy."

   The justices can instead write a narrow opinion that places limits on state 
courts without upsetting the choices New York and other states have made to 
restrict partisan redistricting, a group of New York voters wrote in a court 
filing.

   The New Yorkers implicitly recognize that if the court gives more power to 
state legislatures over drawing congressional lines, Republicans may not 
necessarily benefit.

   During the last redistricting cycle, states that used independent 
redistricting commissions rather than legislatures were largely 
Democratic-dominated ones. Commissions drew 95 House seats in states with 
Democratic legislatures and governors, as opposed to only 12 in states with GOP 
control. A ruling that grants legislatures ultimate power over redistricting 
could eradicate those commissions and let Democrats redraw a major chunk of the 
House map.

   "The bottom line is the impact of this fringe theory would be terrible," 
said former Attorney General Eric Holder, chairman of the National Democratic 
Redistricting Committee. "It could unleash a wave of gerrymandering from both 
parties."

   Even less dramatic changes may not necessarily tilt the GOP's way on a 
national redistricting map that was essentially fought to a draw, and where 
state court rulings cost Democrats about as many House seats as Republicans.

   The Supreme Court refused to step into the North Carolina case in March, 
allowing the court-drawn districts to be used this year.

   Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented. Writing 
for the three, Alito said "there must be some limit on the authority of state 
courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are 
prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections. I think it is likely 
that the applicants would succeed in showing that the North Carolina Supreme 
Court exceeded those limits."

   Justice Brett Kavanaugh has separately written about the need for federal 
courts to police the actions of state courts when it comes to federal elections.

   Chief Justice John Roberts' record on this question gives both sides some 
hope. In 2015, he wrote a strong dissent from the court's decision upholding an 
independent redistricting commission in Arizona.

   Roberts wrote that the Constitution does not permit "a state to wholly 
exclude 'the Legislature' from redistricting. "

   But in 2019, Roberts wrote the court's majority opinion that closed federal 
courts to claims of partisan gerrymandering but noted state courts remained 
open. "Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide 
standards and guidance for state courts to apply," he wrote, in an opinion 
joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas.

   The court's other conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, has no track 
record in this area.

   In North Carolina, a new round of redistricting is expected to go forward 
next year and produce a map with more Republican districts, whatever the 
outcome of the high-court case.

   In last month's elections, voters flipped the majority on the state Supreme 
Court, electing two new Republican justices that give the GOP a 5-2 edge and 
make it probable, though not certain, that the court would uphold a map with 
more Republican districts.