Moore v. Harper Supreme Court Case
North Carolina has become the battleground for government control between Republicans and Democrats. The 2011 district maps, which gave Republicans a supermajority, experienced a significant amount of litigation over the past decade. Redistricting has historically diminished the voting power of Black and Lantino voters in North Carolina. The federal courts recognized this intentional discrimination in Covington v. North Carolina and struck districts down on racial grounds. Now, the 2020 census and the fight for control of the state has instigated another round of litigation over district maps.
The state legislature first proposed a map that was struck down on February 4th, 2021 by the North Carolina Supreme Court on grounds that it violated elements of the State’s Constitution and was clearly a partisan gerrymander. According to the Brennan Center, the GOP controlled legislature drew the maps so Republicans could win 10 out of the 14 house seats with only 48% of the popular vote. The court concluded the level of partisanship present in the maps violated the state constitution since it would deprive “a voter of his or her right to substantially equal voting power on the basis of partisan affiliation” Justice Robin Hudson wrote in the order. North Carolina approved the second drafted map on February 24th. These maps are drawn by three court appointed redistricting specialists and are predicted to favor Democrats in the congressional races, but by only a small margin.
The day after North Carolina State Courts approved the maps and denied appeals, the state's Republican lawmakers issued an emergency filing with the United States Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court’s dissent, Justice Samuel Alito denied the Republican’s emergency request to reinstate the original map before the election. However, the justices agreed to add the redistricting case – Moore v. Harper – to the docket, and will deliver an opinion after the 2022 midterm elections.
The current North Carolina district maps, which will be used for the 2022 midterm elections, are a more accurate representation of the way the political climate has changed throughout the last decade. These will most likely increase voter turnout for the 2022 midterm elections. In North Carolina’s research triangle for instance, there are thousands of unregistered and unengaged voters that would have the ability to flip a State Senate seat. The fact that areas, like Wake County, which contain voting groups with powerful voting abilities have remained intact throughout the redistricting process will allow for the true mobilization of voters. The more citizens who feel like their vote matters and turnout to vote in 2022, the more accurately constituents will be represented. These elements are what stand to be lost if the Supreme Court upholds the sole power of the legislature to administer voting procedures.
The Moore v. Harper decision could create important precedents for the judicial branch’s involvement in future redistricting cases. Plaintiffs point to the Elections Clause of the US Constitution, which only ratifies the involvement of the legislative branch in the redistricting process. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have indicated their support of the independent state legislature theory, which asserts that states’ supreme courts should not override the redistricting process that is proposed by the legislative branch. If the Supreme Court were to rule that state courts are prohibited from being involved in the elections process, states would be able to exasperate the individualization of voting laws and would be less accountable when it comes to gerrymandering.
Redistricting and voting procedures is a fundamental part of the United States democracy and thus requires the use of checks and balances as written into the constitution. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the North Carolina court’s ordering of a redrawn district map is beyond its constitutional jurisdiction, Moore v. Harper could prohibit the use of checks and balances. By preventing courts involvement in the redistricting and elections process, the legislative branch would be given sole control over the election process. This would create a biased system in which politicians are able to influence the means in which they get elected. Legislative members don’t have term limits, meaning that systematically altering the voting system can potentially keep a politician in power permanently. Should the legislature be able to create the procedures by which voting is administered, even if they violate the state constitution?
The ruling will likely come down to both the Justices’ alignment with originalism in regards to the Election Clause. The clause states that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett are self proclaimed Orgininalists. If they were to interpret “Time, Places, and Manner” as unregulated oversight of the redistricting process that indirectly determines the “Manner” of voting for citizens, there would be a reestablished distribution of power among the branches of government. Most other redistricting cases, like Merrill v Milligan in Alabama, are conditional on the Voting Rights Act, and the Justice’s interpretation of Section 2 which states that no voting procedures should abridge the right to vote on the basis of race. The current maps limit the influence of the large African American population by distributing the voters across districts. The Supreme Court is most likely to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan, since in order to remediate the current distribution, the legislature would have to consider race while drawing the maps, thus violating the 14th and 15th amendments. Yet, the Moore v. Harper case does not focus on the Voting Rights Act, and the case has not yet been heard before a court, meaning the ruling is much more uncertain. As we move towards the 2022 midterm elections, which will be a clear indicator of the effect of the 2020 census redistricting, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court and the Moore v Harper case.
Jacqueline Metzler (‘26) is a Freshman at Brown University. She is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at jacqueline_metzler@brown.edu.