New York Times: Five Things You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Case That Could Radically Change Elections

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday about whether to adopt a legal theory that would radically reshape how federal elections are conducted.

The case, Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271, concerns a congressional district map drawn by the North Carolina Legislature that was rejected as a partisan gerrymander by the state’s Supreme Court. The Legislature, citing a once-fringe idea known as the independent state legislature doctrine, claims that the Constitution gives state legislatures power over the rules for federal elections, and that those rules cannot be overruled by state courts or constitutions.

The theory, if accepted, would give state legislatures enormous and largely unchecked power to set all sorts of election rules, particularly by drawing congressional maps warped by partisan gerrymandering.

Both legal scholars and respected political figures, including prominent conservative legal figures who have warned against adopting the theory, are calling the case the most important debate over federalism in decades, if not in the nation’s history. Here are some key points in the debate: …

The Supreme Court has rejected the theory in past rulings, as recently as 2019.

Chief Justice John Roberts implicitly ruled out support for the theory in a landmark 2019 decision, Rucho v. Common Cause, which stated that partisan gerrymanders were political matters outside the purview of federal courts.

“Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply” in outlawing partisan maps, he wrote, citing a voter-approved amendment to the Florida Constitution that forbids maps drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party.