Moore v Harper: the impacts of the supreme court’s rulingThe impacts of the supreme court’s ruling in Moore v Harper extend to redistricting, and beyond.
Its most immediate effect is to preserve longstanding norms over state courts’ ability to weigh in on legislatures’ actions when it comes to federal elections, as the Guardian’s Sam Levine reports:
The 6-3 decision in Moore v Harper is a blow to North Carolina Republicans who had asked the court to embrace the so-called independent state legislature theory – the idea that the US constitution does not allow state courts to limit the power of state legislatures when it comes to federal elections. Such a decision in the case would have been a major win for Republicans, who control more state legislatures than Democrats do. Some of the conservative justices on the court had urged the bench to embrace the idea.
“We will have to resolve this question sooner or later, and the sooner we do so, the better,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent at an earlier stage in the case that was joined by Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. “If the language of the elections clause is taken seriously, 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.”
The court’s decision means that state courts can continue to weigh in on disputes over federal election rules. State courts have become increasingly popular forums for hearing those disputes, especially after the US supreme court said in 2019 that federal courts could not address partisan gerrymandering.
But Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor focusing on American elections, sees broader implications in the justices’ rejection of the fringe independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which Republican lawmakers from North Carolina has asked them to endorse in the case:
First, the ISL theory could have unraveled all instances where states implemented election policies for federal elections that did not include the state legislature. That includes voter-approved ballot initiatives for policies like mail balloting, same-day registration, etc.
— Michael McDonald (@ElectProject) June 27, 2023 Here’s more from Sam on the case:
Key events
Show key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Speaking of Donald Trump and 2024, Kevin McCarthy made a curious comment this morning in an interview with CNBC.
Asked if he thought Trump could win an election despite all his legal troubles, the Republican House speaker replied, “Yeah he can … the question is, is he strongest to win the election? I don’t know that answer. But can … anybody beat Biden? Yeah, anybody can beat Biden. Can Biden beat other people? Yes, Biden can beat them.”
Make of that what you will. Here’s the full clip:
During his campaign swing through New Hampshire, Ron DeSantis was asked about his views on the January 6 insurrection.
Donald Trump has repeatedly insulted DeSantis, who is his closest rival for the Republican presidential nomination next year, but that apparently isn’t enough to earn the Florida’s governor’s condemnation of the former president’s involvement in the attack on the Capitol:
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), when asked if Donald Trump violated the peaceful transfer of power on January 6th:
“I wasn’t anywhere near Washington that day. I have nothing to do with what happened that day. Obviously, I didn’t enjoy seeing what happened.” pic.twitter.com/386NGQ87qk
— The Recount (@therecount) June 27, 2023Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House, has also praised the supreme court’s ruling in Moore v Harper.
Posting to Twitter, Pelosi said:
Today, the Supreme Court rejected a fringe, far-right assault on a sacred pillar of American Democracy: the right to vote.
With its ruling in Moore v. Harper, the Court refused the MAGA Republicans’ radical theory and reaffirmed our Founders’ vision of checks and balances.
However, it remains urgent and essential to reverse the Court’s attack on the Voting Rights Act ten years ago in Shelby v. Holder. The Congress must enact the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and our For The People Act to defend and expand the freedom to vote for all.
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 27, 2023 The White House has responded to the supreme court’s ruling in Moore v Harper, calling it a “critical” move for voting rights.
White House spokesperson Olivia Dalton said the “extreme” legal theory would have let politicians undermine the will of the people.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis, at a campaign event in Hollis, New Hampshire, also vowed to tear down Washington’s traditional political power centers, AP reports.
Asked about people who had voted twice for Donald Trump because of promises to “drain the swamp” in the nation’s capital, DeSantis replied:
He didn’t drain it. It’s worse today than it’s ever been.
He said he would take power out of Washington by instructing cabinet agencies to halve the number of employees there, adding:
I want to break the swamp.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis has vowed to succeed where Donald Trump failed and to “actually” build the wall between the US and Mexico, as the two held dueling campaign events in New Hampshire.
DeSantis, at a town hall in Hollis, spoke about his new immigration policy proposal which includes calling for ending birthright citizenship, finishing the border wall and sending US forces into Mexico to combat drug cartels, AP reports.
He said:
We’re actually going to build the wall. A lot of politicians chirp. They make grandiose promises and then fail to deliver the actual results. The time for excuses is over. Now is the time to deliver results and finally get the job done.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis speaks during a town hall event in Hollis, New Hampshire. Photograph: Josh Reynolds/APA group of House Democrats are calling for an independent investigation into the US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, following reports that he received lavish gifts and financial support from the Republican mega-donor and billionaire real estate developer, Harlan Crow.
In a letter to the chief justice, John Roberts, the group of 18 House Democrats urged Roberts to set up an “independent investigative body” within the supreme court to probe “alleged ethical improprieties”.
Thomas’s relationship with Crow, and his failure to declare many gifts, has long been known. But in April, ProPublica detailed gifts from Crow to Thomas including luxury travel and resort stays, a property purchase and the paying of school fees. Democrats have called for Thomas to be impeached and removed.
ProPublica also reported that the supreme court justice, Samuel Alito, accepted a seat on a private plane owned by the conservative billionaire Paul Singer, flying to Alaska for a luxury fishing trip hosted by another rightwing businessman, then did not declare such gifts or recuse himself when Singer had business before the court.
The letter by House Democrats, led by New York congressman Dan Goldman and shared with NBC News, criticizes Roberts for saying the court can convince the public that it “adheres to the highest standards of conduct” without taking new action to address recent ethics questions. It reads:
The Court’s failure to conduct a meaningful, independent investigation into allegations against Justices Thomas and Alito only underscores widespread concerns that the Supreme Court is not subject to a code of ethics or an adequate enforcement process.
It continues:
If, as you say, the Court is capable of upholding the highest ethical standards, then we hope you will accept our recommendations to establish an independent and transparent investigative body and separate ethics counsel to regain the trust and confidence of the American people.
The day so farDemocracy advocates are cheering after the supreme court struck down an attempt by Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina to get the justices’ endorsement of a fringe legal theory that could have greatly worsened partisan gerrymandering nationwide. Meanwhile, Walt Nauta, the valet to Donald Trump who was indicted alongside him for charges related to the classified documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago, missed his arraignment today. The hearing will now take place on 6 July.
Here’s a rundown of what has happened today so far:
The supreme court will release more opinions on Thursday. The nine justices have seven cases left to decide, including those dealing with affirmative action and Joe Biden’s student loan relief plan.
Alabama’s Republican governor has called a special legislative session to redraw the state’s congressional maps, after the supreme court earlier this month ruled the current districts discriminated against Black voters.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s Democratic leader, outlined plans to find agreement with Republicans on a bunch of different pieces of legislation.
All kinds of people and organizations are weighing in on the supreme court’s ruling in Moore v Harper – including Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Yes, that Arnold Schwarzenegger – the one known globally for his friendship with Dylan, for being a good man to stick with if you want to live, and for being an all-around chill guy. Californians will also remember him as their former governor, and the most-recent Republican to hold the office.
Schwarzenegger, an avid Twitter user in the twilight years of his twin careers in Hollywood and Sacramento, took to the platform to express his happiness at the court’s ruling in the case that could have upended congressional redistricting nationwide, and also to continue his feud with Jeff Clark, a Donald Trump-era justice department official who played a key role in the former president’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election:
Chuck Schumer may say that “Senate Democrats will continue to fight for free and fair elections”, but actually doing so is easier said than done.
Democrats’ slim majority in the Senate and the availability of the filibuster to the GOP means passing legislation to address the issues that worry democracy advocates most – think partisan gerrymandering, or restrictions on ballot box access that can disenfranchise certain groups – appears beyond their abilities in this Congress. And if those weren’t obstacles enough, the House’s Republican leaders have shown little willingness to consider such legislation.
Indeed, voting rights legislation wasn’t mentioned by Schumer in an interview published by Politico today, in which the Senate majority leader outlined his legislative priorities:
After spending six months focused on confirming President Joe Biden’s nominees and fighting off GOP regulatory rollbacks, the Senate majority leader is planning to pivot into bipartisan policymaking mode. During an interview with POLITICO, Schumer outlined an enterprising agenda that includes must-pass bills on defense, aviation and farm policy, as well as long-held priorities like marijuana banking and China competitiveness.
That’s on top of a rail safety plan that could run into a wall of GOP resistance and a challenging push to lower prescription drug prices — plus more. And any of those bills risk falling to a filibuster by Republicans who are deciding whether they’re in a mood to compromise before the 2024 election, which could give them control of the Senate.
“There are a bunch of Republicans in the Senate who want to work with us,” Schumer said in an interview. “We’ll try to get as many [bills] done as we can. Legislating in the Senate with the rules we have is not easy, right? But if you push ahead, we’re going to get some good things done.”
After the supreme court’s ruling in Moore v Harper, the Senate’s Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said democracy advocates “can stand a bit taller.”
Here’s his full statement:
Today those who support democracy, fair elections and the rule of law can stand a bit taller. Today’s ruling reaffirms the longstanding precedent that respects our constitutional system of checks and balances. There is still much work to do to protect American democracy. As John Lewis said, ‘Democracy is not a state. It is an act,’ which is why Senate Democrats will continue to fight for free and fair elections.
Martin Pengelly
There are some interesting names among amicus briefs filed with the supreme court over Moore v Harper – amicus briefs being, in the words of Cornell Law School, documents filed by “friends of the court” (“amicus curiae”), those being “a person or group who is not a party to an action, but has a strong interest in the matter [and] will petition the court for permission to submit a brief in the action intending to influence the court’s decision”.
One amicus brief in Moore v Harper came from the America First Legal Foundation. Influencewatch.org calls that group “a right-of-center nonprofit [co-]formed by former senior Trump White House adviser Stephen Miller … aim[ing] to use litigation to oppose left-of-center policies enacted by the Biden administration. The board is made up of former Trump officials including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker”.
Another amicus brief came from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group backed by the rightwing Koch donor network that the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington has described as a “rightwing network that brings conservative lawmakers together with corporate lobbyists to create model legislation that is cloned across the US”.
Also filing an amicus brief was Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit which successfully challenged campaign finance laws in a 2010 supreme court ruling which changed the landscape of US elections, unleashing corporate money.
One more amicus brief to note in Moore v Harper: that filed by John Eastman, law professor and chief ideologue of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election who is currently fighting a move to disbar him.
With friends of the court like these…
In other redistricting news, Alabama’s Republican governor has Kay Ivey has called the state legislature back into session to draw new congressional maps:
I have called the Alabama Legislature into a special session beginning July 17 at 2:00 p.m., to address redistricting.
It is critical that Alabama be fairly and accurately represented in Washington. Our Legislature knows our state better than the federal courts do. #alpolitics pic.twitter.com/UmVcMMuf3d
— Governor Kay Ivey (@GovernorKayIvey) June 27, 2023 The catalyst is a supreme court ruling released earlier this month that found the state’s maps discriminated against Black voters. Alabama’s legislature is dominated by Republicans, but as a result of the decision, they are expected to draw a map that will create a second majority-Black congressional district – a seat Democrats may have a good shot at winning, given African-American voters’ tendency to support the party.
Moore v Harper: the impacts of the supreme court’s rulingThe impacts of the supreme court’s ruling in Moore v Harper extend to redistricting, and beyond.
Its most immediate effect is to preserve longstanding norms over state courts’ ability to weigh in on legislatures’ actions when it comes to federal elections, as the Guardian’s Sam Levine reports:
The 6-3 decision in Moore v Harper is a blow to North Carolina Republicans who had asked the court to embrace the so-called independent state legislature theory – the idea that the US constitution does not allow state courts to limit the power of state legislatures when it comes to federal elections. Such a decision in the case would have been a major win for Republicans, who control more state legislatures than Democrats do. Some of the conservative justices on the court had urged the bench to embrace the idea.
“We will have to resolve this question sooner or later, and the sooner we do so, the better,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent at an earlier stage in the case that was joined by Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. “If the language of the elections clause is taken seriously, 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.”
The court’s decision means that state courts can continue to weigh in on disputes over federal election rules. State courts have become increasingly popular forums for hearing those disputes, especially after the US supreme court said in 2019 that federal courts could not address partisan gerrymandering.
But Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor focusing on American elections, sees broader implications in the justices’ rejection of the fringe independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which Republican lawmakers from North Carolina has asked them to endorse in the case:
First, the ISL theory could have unraveled all instances where states implemented election policies for federal elections that did not include the state legislature. That includes voter-approved ballot initiatives for policies like mail balloting, same-day registration, etc.
— Michael McDonald (@ElectProject) June 27, 2023 Here’s more from Sam on the case:
And here are a few thoughts on the Moore v Harper ruling from Ari Savitzky, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s voting rights project:
The Supreme Court was right to reject the misbegotten independent state legislature theory. In our system, there is no room for a rogue legislature that can violate its own founding charter without any checks from other branches of government. This radical theory is totally contrary to the bedrock principle of checks and balances, and the court has correctly relegated it to the dustbin of history. The court’s decision confirms the important role of state courts and state constitutions in ensuring fair elections and protecting the right to vote for all.
Youth voter organization NextGen America has reacted to the supreme court’s rejection of an attempt by Republican lawmakers to promote a fringe legal theory that would have transformed redistricting in the Moore v Harper case.
Here’s what the group’s president Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez had to say:
We are glad the high court took a critical stance by rejecting North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers’ attempts to erode our nation’s checks and balances through the anti-democratic independent state legislature theory. Today, the Court ruled in favor of voters and protected state courts’ power to hold lawmakers accountable to state laws when it comes to our elections. This is a major win for voters and protects our democracy from attacks on voting rights and threats to our systems of free and fair elections.
Now, young voters nationwide call on Congress to work on behalf of the people who elected them and enshrine critical voter protections into federal law. The stakes are too big and without Congressional legislative action we are facing the degradation of democracy. Young people will not stand idly by as we see the blatant and unchecked attack on our rights and our freedoms and we won’t stop organizing, mobilizing, and using our collective power until we create a democracy that works for all of us.