GOP Urges North Carolina Supreme Court to Let Lawmakers, Not Judges, Do Redistricting

North Carolina Republicans requested that the state’s supreme Court restore GOP-approved electoral maps that the court had previously thrown out. This could help Republicans gain in Congress and the state legislature.

Raleigh, North Carolina heard in Raleigh in a case of statewide redistricting that was closely watched and is likely to have major national repercussions.

This case will test the controversial and once-obscure independent state legislative doctrine. Republicans claim that the U.S. Constitution has always explicitly authorized state legislatures to set rules for conduct of federal election in their respective states, without the involvement of state courts.

They also point out that Article I, Elections Clause of the Constitution contains part of: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[.]”

Republican Tim Moore, speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and a driving force in the litigation, said last year, “The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: state legislatures are responsible for drawing congressional maps, not state court judges, and certainly not with the aid of partisan political operatives.”

One analysis suggests that if Republicans win and the old maps are restored, they could gain up to four additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives from North Carolina. Seven of the seven congressional districts in North Carolina are now held by Republicans. The remaining seven are held by Democrats. The additional GOP seats could be used to increase the Republicans’ slim majority in the U.S. House.

Moore v. Harper could be affected by the outcome of this case. This appeal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s original ruling is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is currently being considered by the nation’s highest court, which heard oral arguments Dec. 7, 2022.

In the past, Democrats were the majority on the state courts. The court found that maps drawn by the legislature had unlawfully discriminated against Democratic Party voters. After recent elections, the court majority was made up of Republicans. They decided to hear the case Harper v. Hall, which is known in the court as Harper v. Hall. According to reports, this is only the third time that the court has ordered a hearing in the last 30 years.

This prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to signal on March 2 that it is considering dropping Moore v. Harper. It ordered the litigants to file supplemental shorts by March 20 to address whether the court still has jurisdiction to decide the case.

Members of the Supreme Court of North Carolina examined whether Republican legislators illegally gerrymandered electoral maps, violating the state constitution.

Even though the court was supposed to address a case known by the nickname “The Judge”, “Harper II,” This pertains to maps that were drafted to replace invalidated ones. The GOP also wants the court reverse an earlier decision. “Harper I” These were the original maps.

Lali Madduri of Elias Law Group, who represented a bloc in the case for a bloc voters, said to the court that Republican legislators were playing “a cynical game, hoping that this newly constituted court will reverse course, and abdicate its fundamental duty of judicial review.”

The court had previously issued “landmark decisions recognizing that the North Carolina Constitution prohibits partisan gerrymandering that systematically dilutes some North Carolinians’ votes, and requires that all voters have substantially equal voting power,” She spoke.

Justice Michael Morgan was a Democrat and had previously ruled against Republican lawmakers.

“What has happened over the course of the past 88 days since we issued our opinion in this case that would mandate and compel a different result?” Morgan said.

Phillip Strach (the attorney for the GOP lawmakers) stated that the court doesn’t have the power to rule on alleged Gerrymanders and that redistricting should be left to the legislature.

“‘Harper I’ claimed to divine the holy grail, a standard by which so-called partisan gerrymandering could be measured and enforced by the courts,” The lawyer agreed.

“But as ‘Harper II’ demonstrated, that was simply a fool’s errand.”

Justice Richard Dietz, a new Republican member of the court, asked if the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court was considering Moore v. Harper deprived the North Carolina court of the authority to overrule ‘Harper I.’

Strach replied: “This court certainly has the authority to overrule ‘Harper I’ notwithstanding Moore v. Harper.”

Justice Anita Earls was a Democrat and engaged in a heated exchange with Strach.

Earls claimed that the original trial court found the 2021 maps to be invalid. “resiliently safeguarded electoral advantage for Republicans to ensure that Republicans will retain majorities in North Carolina’s congressional district and the General Assembly, even when voters clearly preferred the other party, that they were among the most extreme gerrymanders possible, and were carefully crafted for Republican advantage.”

She said, “you’re asking us to say that in spite of those facts, this North Carolina Constitution offers no protection to voters?”

“The North Carolina Constitution does not speak to partisanship and redistricting,” Strach replied.

“So then that would mean that if the General Assembly had a redistricting criteria that said the partisan makeup of North Carolina’s congressional districts must be to elect a congressional delegation that’s 11 Republicans and three Democrats, it would be beyond the power of this court to prohibit that?” The justice asked the lawyer.

Strach replied: “Some things, Your Honor, are beyond the power of this court. Some things are beyond the power of political actors in this, in our system.”

The legislature should also have “free rein to enact legislative districts that give extreme partisan advantage to one political party rather than” Following “to some measures of fairness?” Earls said.

Strach stated that the question is not something upon which the court can decide.

“This court does not have the power to address that issue. And part of the reason this court does not have the power to address that issue is because it does not have the tools to answer the question,” He said.

It is not clear when the court will make a ruling.