North Carolina Republicans wanted to redraw their constituency boundaries. The Supreme Court rejected that. His rule may have a positive impact on elections across the country.
The ruling has been eagerly awaited in the United States — and it has brought relief, especially to Democrats. But not just for Democrats. Former federal judge Michael Luttig, known for being more conservative than liberal, called the court’s decision on national public radio a resounding, crushing victory for American democracy.
In fact, the Supreme Court’s decision was about whether state legislatures could rule on electoral law issues without review by the courts. So: Are the “checks and balances” still in effect – mutual control over individual constitutional bodies? Former Attorney General Neil Katyal claimed the case as counsel before the Supreme Court.
Referring to the North Carolina Republicans who took the case to the US Supreme Court, Katyal said after MSNBC’s decision, “They wanted to undermine our system of checks and balances and enable state legislatures to run elections whatever they wanted. I can’t think of anything more un-American.” “. Katyal stressed that the constitution clearly takes precedence over politics.
The judge argues with the choice clause
The case was motivated in North Carolina. There, under the leadership of the Republicans, Parliament made changes to constituencies in order to improve the outcome for their party. On the other hand, the Democrats went to court in North Carolina – with success. The Republicans then took the case to the Supreme Court – arguing that the North Carolina court had no authority to declare the precinct illegal.
This position is based on a legal theory that only state legislatures can pass electoral laws or constituency decisions. This theory has a lot of supporters, especially among supporters of former President Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court opposed the controversial legal theory by a vote of six to three. Commenting on the ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: The election clause does not protect state legislatures from ordinary state judicial review.
Fear the messy consequences in advance
CNN Television’s legal expert, Joanne Biskubic, spoke of a remarkable ruling. Especially since it seemed as though some conservative Supreme Court justices were at least open to this theory, according to Biskubiek. She explained: If the Supreme Court had ruled on a constitutional theory, the results would have been chaotic. A situation that many experts feared, especially with regard to the presidential elections next year. There was great concern that, among other things, target groups could be manipulated.
Former US President Barack Obama, who often does not comment on court decisions, tweeted with relief that the Supreme Court rejected the strange theory. The approach threatened to upend democracy.