Major Announcement: SCOTUS Takes Case On North Carolina’s Republicans’ Election Map Being Contested By Democrats

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Disclaimer: This article may contain the personal views and opinions of the author.

Election maps are starting to get more attention and focus these days. The Raging Patriot recently reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Louisiana state legislature by allowing the state’s Republican-drawn congressional map to remain in place. It was recently reported that a federal judge had previously ruled the map violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered lawmakers to redraw the state’s six congressional districts to include two in which Black voters were in the majority. In a brief one-page order, the Supreme Court said it would wait until next term to rule on the matter given there’s a similar case from Alabama scheduled to be argued next term, which begins in October. The Court ruled 6-3 on the case, with the three liberal Justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – dissenting.

Now, it is being reported that the Supreme Court is set to be back to work in October and one case that it has agreed to hear has many waiting in anticipation.

The case is to decide if Republican legislators from North Carolina GOP have the authority to draw a partisan election map and not have state judges interfering, Just The News reported.

The decision could impact future congressional and presidential elections. The high court will take up the case when its next term begins in October.

The case of Moore vs. Harper, asks the court to uphold the concept – known as the “independent state legislature” theory – that state legislators have the sole and “independent” authority to set rules for federal elections in their states, without interference or oversight by the governor or the state judges.

North Carolina GOP House Speaker Timothy Moore asked the high court to consider the case on appeal of his own state Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year to strike down the theory relating to a gerrymandering case.

“In an election case out of North Carolina, SCOTUS agrees to review the “independent state legislature” theory next term. Under that theory, state legislatures have broad power to set rules for federal elections, even if state courts say those rules are unconstitutional,” SCOTUS Blog said.

“The North Carolina election case is Moore v. Harper. SCOTUS also adds two other new cases to its docket for next term: Percoco v. U.S. (a case about honest-services fraud brought by a former Andrew Cuomo aide) and Ciminelli v. U.S. (a case about federal wire fraud),” it said.

“In addition to those three grants, SCOTUS declines review in a challenge to New York’s vaccine mandate for health care workers,” it said.

The court had a busy day on Thursday as it handed decisions in two major cases.

In the case of West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency, the Court ruled 6-3 to curb the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gasses.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. The Court’s three liberal justices dissented.

“Republican attorneys general will argue the EPA has no authority to regulate planet-warming emissions from the power sector. Instead, they will say that authority should be given to Congress,” CNN reported. The case also has enormous implications for Biden’s climate agenda. With legislative action on climate looking uncertain at best, a Supreme Court decision siding with coal companies could undercut an important way the administration planned to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.”

“The power sector is the country’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gas. Power emissions rose last year, mainly driven by coal. Experts say West Virginia v. EPA is a highly unusual case because there is no current EPA rule on power plant emissions. Plaintiffs are asking the court to block the EPA from implementing future rules,” the outlet added.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, the main plaintiff in the case, was joined by Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen other states.

Leave a Reply