Key Takeaways

1. The Supreme Court decisively rejected the "independent state legislature theory" (ISL), affirming that state courts retain the authority to review state legislatures’ actions regarding federal elections.
2. Moore v. Harper preserves the checks and balances within the U.S. electoral system, preventing state legislatures from having unchecked power over federal election rules.
3. While the ruling is a victory for judicial review and democracy, it leaves open some questions about the precise limits of state court oversight and future litigation possibilities.

Introduction

Moore v. Harper is a landmark 2023 Supreme Court case that addressed the scope of state legislative power over federal elections. The dispute centered on North Carolina’s congressional district maps and the controversial "independent state legislature theory" (ISL). This theory argued that state legislatures alone have the authority to regulate federal elections, free from interference by state courts or constitutions. The Supreme Court’s rejection of ISL in a 6-3 decision has far-reaching implications for election law, federalism, and the integrity of American democracy.

This guide provides a comprehensive analysis of Moore v. Harper, exploring its background, legal arguments, Supreme Court reasoning, and the decision’s broader impact. We draw on official sources and leading legal commentary to offer nuanced insights for attorneys, scholars, and anyone interested in the future of U.S. elections.

Background of Moore v. Harper

The Origins: North Carolina’s Congressional Maps

The origins of Moore v. Harper trace back to the 2020 redistricting cycle in North Carolina. After the 2020 census, the North Carolina General Assembly, controlled by Republicans, drew new congressional district maps. Critics alleged these maps were extreme partisan gerrymanders favoring Republicans and diluting Democratic votes.

A group of North Carolina voters and advocacy organizations challenged the maps in state court, arguing they violated multiple provisions of the North Carolina Constitution, including guarantees of free elections and equal protection. In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the maps constituted an impermissible partisan gerrymander and ordering the legislature to redraw them.

The Legal Escalation: Independent State Legislature Theory

Republican legislators, led by Speaker Timothy Moore, appealed the state court’s decision. They argued that under the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4), only the state legislature—not the state courts—had authority over federal election rules, including redistricting. This position, known as the "independent state legislature theory" (ISL), posits that state legislatures have near-absolute power over federal election regulations, unconstrained by state constitutions or judicial review.

This theory has been largely rejected by courts and scholars for decades but gained prominence in recent years, particularly after the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, setting the stage for a potentially transformative decision on the structure of American democracy.

The Question Presented

The central question before the Supreme Court was: Does the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution give exclusive authority to state legislatures to regulate federal elections, thereby preventing state courts from reviewing or invalidating legislative actions under state constitutions?

The Supreme Court’s Proceedings

Oral Arguments and Briefs

Oral arguments in Moore v. Harper took place on December 7, 2022. The case attracted national attention, with dozens of amicus briefs filed by states, legal scholars, civil rights organizations, and election officials. The parties and amici debated the historical meaning of the Elections Clause, the role of state constitutions, and the practical consequences for election administration.

You can listen to the oral arguments and read the briefs on the Supreme Court’s official website.

The Decision

On June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision, rejecting the ISL theory in a 6-3 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The majority held that state courts retain the authority to review state laws governing federal elections under their state constitutions and to provide remedies when those laws violate state constitutional provisions.

The official opinion is available here: Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. ___ (2023).

The Legal Arguments in Moore v. Harper

Petitioners’ Arguments: The ISL Theory

The North Carolina legislators advanced a robust version of the ISL theory. They argued:

• The Elections Clause states: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." (U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1)
• "Legislature" means the institutional legislature, not the state as a whole or its constitution.
• State courts and constitutions may not limit the legislature’s authority to regulate federal elections.
• Allowing state courts to override legislative decisions risks judicial overreach and undermines uniformity in federal elections.

This theory, if accepted, would have given state legislatures unchecked power to gerrymander districts, restrict voting rights, or otherwise manipulate federal election rules without meaningful oversight.

Respondents’ Arguments: Checks and Balances

The respondents, including North Carolina voters and Common Cause, countered:

• The term "Legislature" in the Elections Clause refers to the state’s lawmaking process as defined by the state constitution, including judicial review.
• State courts have always interpreted and enforced state constitutions, including in the context of federal elections.
• The ISL theory is inconsistent with historical practice, Supreme Court precedent, and the principles of federalism.
• Judicial review is essential to prevent abuses of power and protect voters’ rights.

They warned that adopting the ISL theory would destabilize election law, undermine state constitutional protections, and open the door to extreme partisan gerrymandering and other abuses.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Majority Opinion

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, rejected the ISL theory. The Court held that the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the constraints of their own state constitutions or from judicial review by state courts.

Key points from the majority opinion:

• Historical Practice: Since the founding, state legislatures have enacted election laws subject to state constitutions and judicial review.
• Precedent: The Court cited cases such as Smiley v. Holm (1932) and Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), which held that the lawmaking process for federal elections must comply with state constitutional requirements.
• Textual Analysis: The word "Legislature" in the Elections Clause refers to the lawmaking process as established by the state constitution, not an independent legislative body.
• Role of State Courts: State courts have the authority to interpret state constitutions and review legislative actions, including those related to federal elections.

The Court concluded: "The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review."

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh concurred, emphasizing the need for federal courts to ensure state courts do not exceed their proper role in interpreting state constitutions.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissented. They argued that the case was moot because North Carolina had adopted new maps, and that the Court should not have reached the merits. Justice Thomas, in particular, expressed concern about the potential for state courts to usurp the legislature’s constitutional role.

Implications of the Decision

Preserving Checks and Balances

The Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper is widely seen as a victory for checks and balances in the U.S. electoral system. By affirming that state courts can review and enforce state constitutional limits on legislatures, the Court preserved a crucial safeguard against abuses of power.

This outcome ensures that state legislatures cannot unilaterally enact extreme gerrymanders, restrict voting rights, or otherwise manipulate federal election rules without judicial oversight. As the Brennan Center for Justice explains, the decision maintains the balance of power between legislatures and courts.

Impact on Redistricting and Voting Rights

The immediate effect of Moore v. Harper is to uphold the authority of state courts to strike down partisan gerrymanders and other election laws that violate state constitutions. This is particularly significant in states where voters have adopted constitutional amendments guaranteeing fair elections or banning partisan gerrymandering.

Organizations like Common Cause and the American Redistricting Project have hailed the decision as a safeguard for fair representation and electoral integrity.

Unanswered Questions and Future Litigation

While the Supreme Court rejected the maximalist ISL theory, it left open some questions:

• Scope of Review: The Court did not define the precise limits of state court authority over federal election laws. It suggested that federal courts may intervene if state courts "transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review."
• Federal Oversight: The decision implies that federal courts can review state court decisions to ensure they do not overstep constitutional limits, but it is unclear what standards will apply.
• Potential for Litigation: These open questions may lead to future legal battles over the boundaries of state and federal court authority in election law.

As the Center for American Progress notes, the ruling is a win for democracy but does not settle every issue.

Broader Context and Analysis

The ISL Theory in Historical Perspective

The independent state legislature theory has deep roots in American constitutional debates but has rarely been accepted by courts. Most historical and legal scholarship rejects the idea that state legislatures are unconstrained by their own constitutions or courts in regulating federal elections.

In Smiley v. Holm (1932), the Supreme Court held that a governor’s veto was part of the legislative process for redistricting. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the Court upheld the use of independent commissions to draw congressional districts, rejecting the argument that only legislatures could do so.

The majority in Moore v. Harper reaffirmed these precedents, rejecting efforts to revive the ISL theory.

Political and Practical Consequences

The decision has significant political and practical implications:

• Redistricting: States may continue to use independent commissions and state constitutional provisions to regulate redistricting for federal elections.
• Election Litigation: State courts remain a venue for challenging partisan gerrymanders, restrictive voting laws, and other election-related statutes.
• Federalism: The ruling reinforces the principle that states can structure their own governments and lawmaking processes, including checks by courts.

As SCOTUSblog and Oyez highlight, Moore v. Harper strengthens the role of judicial review in the American electoral system.

Scholarly and Advocacy Perspectives

The ruling has been praised by legal scholars and democracy advocates as a bulwark against efforts to undermine fair elections. The Harvard Law Review and the Constitutional Accountability Center provide in-depth analyses of the case’s constitutional implications.

Civil rights organizations such as the ACLU emphasize the importance of maintaining checks and balances to protect voting rights and prevent abuses.

Practical Guidance for Attorneys and Advocates

Litigating Election Law Post-Moore v. Harper

Attorneys challenging or defending state election laws should be aware that:

• State courts retain the power to interpret and enforce state constitutional provisions governing federal elections.
• Legislative actions related to federal elections are subject to "ordinary judicial review" by state courts.
• Federal courts may review state court decisions if they arguably exceed "the ordinary bounds of judicial review," but the standards for such review remain unsettled.

For detailed legal research and up-to-date case law, visit Counsel Stack.

Implications for Election Administration

Election officials and policymakers should note:

• State constitutional amendments and independent redistricting commissions remain valid tools for regulating federal elections.
• Efforts to insulate state legislatures from judicial review are unlikely to succeed in light of Moore v. Harper.
• Ongoing vigilance is required to monitor future litigation over the boundaries of state and federal court authority.

The National Association of Counties and Ballotpedia provide additional resources on the administrative impact of the ruling.

Conclusion

Moore v. Harper is a watershed moment in American election law. By rejecting the independent state legislature theory, the Supreme Court preserved the essential role of state courts in reviewing and enforcing constitutional limits on legislative power over federal elections. The decision safeguards checks and balances, protects voting rights, and maintains the integrity of the U.S. electoral system.

While some questions remain about the precise boundaries of judicial review, the ruling provides a strong foundation for future litigation and advocacy. Attorneys, policymakers, and advocates should continue to monitor developments and utilize authoritative legal research tools such as Counsel Stack to stay informed.

Disclaimer

This guide is intended as a general overview of Moore v. Harper and does not constitute legal advice. The case and its implications involve complex and evolving legal issues. For specific legal guidance, consult a qualified attorney or conduct further research using official sources and professional tools.