Introduction

In the landmark case of Moore v. Harper, decided on June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed a pivotal issue concerning the interplay between federal constitutional provisions and state judicial review in the context of election regulations. The dispute originated from North Carolina's redrawing of federal congressional districts following the 2020 census, a move that various plaintiffs alleged constituted an impermissible partisan gerrymander under both federal and state constitutions. This commentary delves into the Court's comprehensive analysis, scrutinizing its stance on the Elections Clause, the scope of judicial review, and the implications for future electoral law adjudications.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the jurisdiction to review the North Carolina Supreme Court's initial ruling (Harper I), which had invalidated the state's congressional maps on the grounds of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering under the North Carolina Constitution. The lower state court had previously held that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under state law, a stance later overruled in Harper III, rendering the case moot. Despite this, the Supreme Court maintained jurisdiction due to the enduring effects of Harper I, specifically the injunction against the 2021 congressional maps.

The Court ultimately held that:

• The Elections Clause does not grant state legislatures exclusive and unrestricted authority to set rules governing federal elections without adherence to state constitutional mandates.
• State legislatures, while empowered under the Elections Clause, remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review, ensuring compliance with state constitutions.
• Federal courts retain the duty to prevent state courts from undermining federal constitutional provisions through their interpretations of state law.

Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court, reinforcing the supremacy of state constitutional oversight over legislative actions pertaining to federal elections.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references pivotal cases that have shaped the Court's understanding of the Elections Clause and the scope of judicial review:

• Marbury v. Madison (1803): Established the principle of judicial review, affirming the Court's authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.
• Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): Determined that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts, thereby rendering them nonjusticiable at the federal level.
• Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant (1916): Held that the Elections Clause does not preclude subjecting legislative acts to a popular referendum.
• SMILEY v. HOLM (1932): Reinforced that state legislatures must follow state constitutional procedures when exercising their authority under the Elections Clause.
• Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015): Affirmed that state constitutions retain the power to impose constraints on how legislatures exercise their redistricting authority.

These precedents collectively underscore that while the Elections Clause delegates specific powers to state legislatures, it does not insulate those bodies from adhering to state constitutional mandates. The Court emphasized that not even federal constitutional provisions like the Elections Clause can override state constitutional restraints.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning in Moore v. Harper was multifaceted, addressing both jurisdictional and substantive constitutional questions:

• Jurisdiction: The Court elucidated that despite the North Carolina Supreme Court overruling its previous decision (Harper I) in Harper III, the injunction from Harper I remained operative, thereby sustaining the Court's jurisdiction over the federal Elections Clause argument. This was grounded in precedent, affirming that certain legal issues can persist beyond their initial judgments if they continue to influence the parties' rights and obligations.
• Elections Clause Interpretation: The Court clarified that the Elections Clause mandates state legislatures to prescribe election regulations, but this authority is not unfettered. State constitutions impose standard lawmaking constraints, ensuring that legislative actions comply with both federal and state constitutional provisions.
• Judicial Review: Reinforcing Marbury v. Madison, the Court emphasized that judicial review remains a fundamental principle, applicable to state legislative actions under the Elections Clause. This ensures a balance of powers, preventing state legislatures from overreaching their delegated authority.

Importantly, the Court dismissed the notion that procedural and substantive constraints under state constitutions are distinct in this context. It concluded that both types of constraints uniformly apply to legislative actions under the Elections Clause, without necessitating separate considerations.

Impact

The decision in Moore v. Harper has profound implications for the regulation of federal elections and the balance of state and federal judicial oversight:

• State Legislative Authority: State legislatures must navigate their redistricting efforts within the bounds of both federal and state constitutions, ensuring that partisan gerrymandering does not contravene state constitutional norms.
• Judicial Oversight: State courts continue to play a critical role in overseeing legislative actions under the Elections Clause, but their interpretations are subject to oversight by federal courts to prevent deviations from federal constitutional mandates.
• Future Gerrymandering Cases: States may face heightened scrutiny in gerrymandering disputes, necessitating meticulous adherence to state constitutional requirements in the delineation of electoral districts.
• Federal-State Legal Dynamics: The ruling reinforces the hierarchical nature of constitutional law, where federal provisions set the overarching framework within which state constitutions operate.

Additionally, the decision signals to states that partisan redistricting cannot bypass state constitutional constraints, potentially leading to more equitable and constitutionally compliant redistricting practices nationwide.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The Elections Clause

The Elections Clause is a provision in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1) that grants state legislatures the authority to determine the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. However, this power is not absolute and must conform to both federal and state constitutional requirements.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the actions of the legislative and executive branches and invalidate those that are unconstitutional. Established firmly in Marbury v. Madison, it ensures that no law or action can supersede the Constitution.

Mootness

Mootness refers to the requirement that there must be an ongoing, live controversy for a court to exercise its jurisdiction. If circumstances render the issue irrelevant to the parties' rights, the case is considered moot and typically dismissed.

Partisan Gerrymandering

Partisan gerrymandering involves drawing electoral district boundaries to favor one political party over another, potentially undermining fair representation. Legal challenges often arise when such practices are alleged to violate constitutional principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Moore v. Harper reaffirms the critical balance between federal constitutional mandates and state judicial oversight in the regulation of federal elections. By holding that the Elections Clause does not grant state legislatures unfettered authority and that state constitutional constraints remain robust, the Court ensures that redistricting processes are both fair and constitutionally compliant. This ruling not only enhances the integrity of electoral processes but also fortifies the foundational principle of judicial review, safeguarding against legislative overreach. Moving forward, states must navigate their redistricting efforts with heightened awareness of both federal and state constitutional landscapes, promoting equitable and transparent electoral representation.