The Supreme Court rejected a radical argument put forth by North Carolina Republicans that sought to give nearly unfettered power over federal elections to state legislatures, with Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberals to rule on Tuesday that the claims had no merit.
Had the court accepted the GOP’s claims, it would have upended the foundations of over two centuries of constitutional law. Such an outcome would have enabled new gerrymanders in several states and a torrent of Republican-backed voter suppression in many more ahead of the 2024 elections. In a worst-case scenario, it could have even allowed Republicans to rig the Electoral College heading into next year.
As some legal scholars observed in response to the decision, the majority appeared to accept a “milder version” of the GOP’s argument that could, as election law expert Rick Hasen put it, allow the Supreme Court “to second-guess state court rulings” in the future if such courts go “too far” in interpreting rules concerning federal elections under state law.
But the ruling nonetheless represents a major loss for Republicans. It also marks the second time this month that the court has rejected a far-right bid to solidify GOP gerrymandering and discriminatory voting restrictions: Earlier in June, the court unexpectedly upheld a key part of the Voting Rights Act in a redistricting case regarding discrimination against Black voters in Alabama.