Washington, D.C. (June 30, 2022) – The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear oral arguments in North Carolina‘s consolidated congressional districting case during the October 2022 term. The case Moore v. Harperpromotes a perilous legal theory that enables state legislatures to restrict voting rights and fair elections without limits.
The Supreme Court has chosen to take up Moore, following its groundbreaking ruling on June 24. The Dobbs abortion case overturned Roe v. Wade, and there are upcoming debates this fall. Another significant voting rights case, Milligan v. Merrill Lynch, is also challenging Alabama’s voting maps.
Click here to view a list of today’s orders from the U.S. Supreme Court.
This decision comes after the North Carolina Supreme Court made a historic ruling that partisan gerrymandering is unlawful under the North Carolina Constitution and requires new district maps to be drawn. The decision led state Legislature leaders to pursue the fringe legal theory, seeking to grant the Legislature unchecked power to enact election and voting-related policies. Plaintiff Common Cause North Carolina Executive Director Bob Phillips described the Legislature’s plan as an “aggressive power grab.” The state’s current legislative leadership aims to undermine the will of the people over the next decade.
“In a bold bid for power, self-serving politicians want to defy our state’s highest court and impose unlawful districts on the people of North Carolina,” he said. Phillips “As this case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we will continue to defend the people of our state and nation. We must stop this dangerous attack on our freedom to vote.”
State lawmakers across the country are asking federal courts to grant them unchecked power to manipulate districts and take away the freedom to vote. Their argument, known as the “Separate State Legislatures Theory,” contradicts the U.S. Constitution and federal precedent. This theory disregards the crucial role state courts have played over the past decade in safeguarding North Carolinians’ constitutional rights from voting-rights infringements by gerrymandered statehouses. The consequences will have the most significant impact on communities of color, working people, individuals with disabilities, under-resourced communities, and other vulnerable constituents in North Carolina and beyond.
“Today’s news from the U.S. Supreme Court makes one thing clear: The future of multiracial democracy is at stake this fall,” Alison Riggs, Co-Executive Director and Voting Rights Chief Counsel, Southern Alliance for Social Justice stated. The firm represented Common Cause in the case. “The existence of Moore means North Carolina lawmakers argue they are effectively given a ”free pass” in gerrymandering to violate the state constitution’s protections against partisan gerrymandering to the detriment of voters. We will vigorously challenge these accusations and speak out on behalf of North Carolinians to prove what the “separate state legislature theory” has always been — a fringe, desperate, and anti-democratic attack on a gerrymandered Legislature.”
Global law firm Hogan Lovells served as pro bono legal counsel on the case.
Regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Moore, the North Carolina General Assembly will redraw the state’s current “interim” congressional map in 2023.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We are committed to creating open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promoting equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and giving all people the right to have a voice in the political process.
Founded in 2007, the Southern Alliance for Social Justice works with communities of color and economically disadvantaged communities in the South to defend and advance their political, social, and economic rights through a combination of legal advocacy, research, organizing, and communications.
Media Contact:
Brian Warner, BWarner@commoncause.org, 919-599-7541; Common Cause NC
Sarah Ovaska, sovaska@commoncause.org, 919-606-6112, Common Cause
Gino Nuzzolillo，gino@scsj.org，402-415-4763；SCSJ
Sailor Jones, sailor@scsj.org, 919-260-5906; SCSJ
Melissa Burton, melissa@scsj.org, 830-481-6901; SCSJ
Moore v Harper case summary
The Looming Threat to Voting Rights: An Analysis of Moore v. Harper
In a move that has sent shockwaves through the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear oral arguments in the consolidated congressional districting case of Moore v. Harper. This decision comes on the heels of the court’s groundbreaking ruling in Dobbs, which overturned Roe v. Wade, and has far-reaching implications for the future of voting rights in the United States.
The case of Moore v. Harper promotes a perilous legal theory that enables state legislatures to restrict voting rights and fair elections without limits. This “Separate State Legislatures Theory” contradicts the U.S. Constitution and federal precedent, disregarding the crucial role state courts have played in safeguarding citizens’ constitutional rights from voting-rights infringements by gerrymandered statehouses.
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s historic ruling that partisan gerrymandering is unlawful under the North Carolina Constitution and requires new district maps to be drawn has been met with resistance from state Legislature leaders. They are seeking to grant the Legislature unchecked power to enact election and voting-related policies, a move that has been described as an “aggressive power grab” by Plaintiff Common Cause North Carolina Executive Director Bob Phillips.
The consequences of this theory will have a disproportionate impact on communities of color, working people, individuals with disabilities, under-resourced communities, and other vulnerable constituents in North Carolina and beyond. The future of multiracial democracy is indeed at stake this fall, and the Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for the country.
It is worth noting that this is not the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on voting rights. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court ruled that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional because the coverage formula was based on data over 40 years old [[3]]. However, in a more recent decision, the court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act [[2]].
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Moore v. Harper is a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle for voting rights in the United States. As the country grapples with issues of partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, and electoral manipulation, it is imperative that the court upholds the principles of democracy and ensures that the voices of all citizens are heard.
In the words of Alison Riggs, Co-Executive Director and Voting Rights Chief Counsel, Southern Alliance for Social Justice, “The future of multiracial democracy is at stake this fall.” It is our hope that the Supreme Court will recognize the gravity of this situation and make a decision that upholds the integrity of our democratic system.
References:
[[1]]https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-strikes-down-current-coverage-formula-voting-rights-act-1
[[2]]https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-upholds-section-2-of-voting-rights-act/
[[3]]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShelbyCountyv._Holder
