[EL] Breaking: North Carolina Supreme Court, on 4-3 Party Line Vote, Strikes Down Congressional and State Legislative District Plans in Violation of the State Constitution

Fri Feb 4 21:55:08 PST 2022

The Independent State Legislature doctrine has been raised several times on
this list in recent days. It is a topic that does not get much attention in
(current editions) of our major casebooks. I put together the attached
overview/handout for my students a few weeks ago and am sharing it for
those of you teaching Election Law this semester who might find it helpful.

Mark S. will likely be disappointed to see that I do not give sufficient
attention to the distinction he has drawn on this list between Art I §4 and
Art II §1. On the other hand, I do highlight a tension between the Trump
campaign's Art. II concerns about Pennsylvania (namely the involvement of
the state supreme court) and Senator Hawley's objections about Pennsylvania
on Jan. 6 (namely the *lack *of involvement by the state supreme court).

Doug

[image: image.png]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Huefner, Steven <huefner.4 at osu.edu> wrote:

> Rick,
>
>
>
> Seems like applying the independent state legislature doctrine to argue
> that the NC Supreme Court’s gerrymandering decision usurped the NC General
> Assembly’s power would also undermine the *Rucho* majority’s assertion
> (in Part V of the opinion) that available remedies for partisan
> gerrymandering of congressional districts include state constitutions and
> amendments thereto, which as the Court acknowledged would be enforceable by
> the state courts…
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: The Ohio State University]
> *Steven Huefner*
>
> C. William O’Neill Professor in Law and Judicial Administration
>
> Deputy Director, *Election Law at Ohio State
> <https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law>*
>
> Director of Clinical Programs/Legislation Clinic Director
>
> Moritz College of Law
>
> 255 Drinko Hall, 55 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1391
>
> 614-292-1763
>
> huefner.4 at osu.edu electionlaw.osu.edu
> <https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Scarberry
> *Sent:* Friday, February 4, 2022 7:10 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Breaking: North Carolina Supreme Court, on 4-3 Party
> Line Vote, Strikes Down Congressional and State Legislative District Plans
> in Violation of the State Constitution
>
>
>
> Some of us have argued for quite some time that the independent state
> legislature doctrine applies to choice of presidential electors but
> probably not (as a matter of long-standing precedent ) to laws regulating
> the manner by which congressional elections are held. There also is the
> separate question as in the Arizona case whether the legislature may be cut
> out of the process entirely. I won’t repeat the arguments previously made
> on this list absent request.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Prof. Mark S. Scarberry
>
> Pepperdine University
>
> Rick J. Caruso School of Law
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 4, 2022 3:48:48 PM
> *To:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Breaking: North Carolina Supreme Court, on 4-3 Party
> Line Vote, Strikes Down Congressional and State Legislative District Plans
> in Violation of the State Constitution
>
>
> Could North Carolina Go to the Supreme Court, Arguing that the North
> Carolina Supreme Court in Requiring Redrawing of Congressional Districts
> Usurped North Carolina General Assembly’s Power?
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/?p=127450__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MvLB6hZj$>
>
> February 4, 2022, 3:47 pm
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/?p=127450__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MvLB6hZj$>
> redistricting
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/?cat=6__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MlQmWplE$>
> , Supreme Court
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/?cat=29__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3Msprr0bU$> *RICK
> HASEN*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/?author=3__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MjWIMbvA$>
>
> From my tweet thread
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1489743875782500353?s=20&t=HmZugoMhU_3_f_JOb-upBw__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MtUIj_7g$>
> :
>
> Maybe this is crazy, but I could see Republicans appealing to SCOTUS,
> arguing that the state court ruling usurped the power of the state
> legislature to set the rules for congressional elections in Art. 1 s 4.
> Would require SCOTUS to overturn Arizona Ind. Redist. case. This would be a
> way to test the so-called “independent state legislature” theory outside
> the context of a presidential election and with a target that SCOTUS
> conservatives don’t like: a Democratic dominated state supreme court in a
> state with a Republican legislature.
>
> The argument is audacious and wrong: it is that a state Supreme Court
> relying on a state constitutional right does not have any power over a
> state legislature setting rules for congressional elections. It would rely
> on the Bush 1 concurrence from the 2000 election. And it would be in great
> tension with the Supreme Court’s decision in 2015 holding that Arizona
> voters could set up an independent redistricting commission cutting out the
> legislature without violating Art. 1 s 4.
>
> But Justice Kavanaugh recently wrongly suggested that the 2000 Bush v.
> Palm Beach County Canvassing Board endorsed the independent state leg
> doctrine when Fla Supreme Court relied on state constitution to alter time
> limits for recounts. And the 2015 Arizona case was 5-4, with CJ Roberts
> writing one of his strongest dissents. The Court personnel has changed and
> 2 of the Justices in the majority are no longer on the Court.
>
> Would they overturn precedent so quickly, in such a highly political case,
> especially after SCOTUS in Rucho pointed to independent commissions and
> state courts as paths for dealing with partisan gerrymandering? And would
> Republicans want to open up states like California to naked partisan
> gerrymandering by Democratic legislatures? We will see. It would be ugly
> and terrible and have bad ramifications for voting laws passed by
> initiatives.
>
> I should be clear that such a ruling, if successful, would apply *only* to
> order to redraw CONGRESSIONAL maps, not state maps.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *listserv messages <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Date: *Friday, February 4, 2022 at 3:25 PM
> *To: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *[EL] Breaking: North Carolina Supreme Court, on 4-3 Party Line
> Vote, Strikes Down Congressional and State Legislative District Plans in
> Violation of the State Constitution
>
>
> Breaking: North Carolina Supreme Court, on 4-3 Party Line Vote, Strikes
> Down Congressional and State Legislative District Plans in Violation of the
> State Constitution
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/?p=127442__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MpdqTVKe$>
>
> February 4, 2022, 3:18 pm
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/?p=127442__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MpdqTVKe$>
> redistricting
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/?cat=6__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MlQmWplE$>*RICK
> HASEN*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/?author=3__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MjWIMbvA$>
>
> This result
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.democracydocket.com/cases/north-carolina-congressional-partisan-gerrymandering-harper-ii/__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3Mr9IYlxi$>was
> anticipated given the court’s earlier rulings along these lines and the
> partisan split on the court. The court promises a more extensive opinion to
> follow.
>
> Of particular interest is this statement to guide the state legislature in
> drawing new maps, which are due by Feb. 18:
>
> *Share this:*
>
> Facebook
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/*facebook__;Iw!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MvioSjUE$>
> Twitter
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/electionlawblog.org/*twitter__;Iw!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3Mu4y-Dk3$>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MlaGJeiG$>
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> Co-Director, Fair Elections and Free Speech Center
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.law.uci.edu/centers/fefs/__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3Ml_VPzjI$>
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>
> 949.824.3072 - office
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> Election Law Blog
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/electionlawblog.org/__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3Mk2il4GO$>
>
> Coming March 2022: Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our
> Politics—and How to Cure It
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259377/cheap-speech__;!!KGKeukY!jb2Ssl40PdvKLSV4-QbM25YW-pwP7KRsx-UJ0HyCkMjOgB4GT_fHqsl3MmiJEqU5$>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20220204/ec05a9a7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3894 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20220204/ec05a9a7/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 430303 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20220204/ec05a9a7/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 39889 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20220204/ec05a9a7/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Independent State Legislature Doctrine.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 40237 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20220204/ec05a9a7/attachment.docx>