Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Moore v. Harper

On December 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper.

Following the most recent census, North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state’s supreme court deemed that map a partisan gerrymander and substituted in its place the court’s own map. That result, it concluded, was required by four separate parts of the state constitution, including clauses protecting the “freedom of speech” and guaranteeing “free” elections. Although the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block that ruling for the 2022 election, it agreed to take the case to answer the broader question of state-court authority over the laws governing federal elections.

Supporters of legislature primacy—often called the “independent state legislature” doctrine—say that a decision enforcing the doctrine will cut back on election-litigation gamesmanship, end the disruption of last-minute rule changes, and put primary responsibility back in the hands of democratically accountable legislators. Opponents, however, say that a decision for the state would threaten voting rights and democracy itself.

We broke down the oral argument for this case.

Featuring:

Andrew M. Grossman, partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, co-leader of the firm’s Appellate and Major Motions practice, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

[ronellisgaut]

the art behind Mr. Grossman is a 9:00 and a bomb - WTF???

[wegder]

Stupid me, I was under the impression that a former President was saying that the State legislatures could simply ignore the election results in their States, how did that get in my mind? Weird

[ronellisgaut]

PS to be clear. that's me commenting not my husband, I'm a lifelong con law geek.