— Washington Ex-Attorney General Eric Holder stated on Sunday that he is “extremely concerned” about the outcome of a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court this week. The case involves a legal theory stating that state legislatures have unfettered authority to set federal election rules without oversight from state courts.
“If the Supreme Court agrees to this, it would seriously undermine our system of checks and balances. Holder stated in an appearance with “Face the Nation” that he is particularly worried for this reason.” “It is an unorthodox theory. If the court does the right thing, conservative scholars, practicing Republican lawyers, past Republican judges, and this conference of state supreme court justices have all rejected the concept of an autonomous state legislature. This hypothesis is extremely, extremely harmful. It would jeopardize our system of checks and balances.”
Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments in the North Carolina Republican court case, which centers on the “autonomous state legislative idea.” Invoked by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in his concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore and by former President Donald Trump and Republicans during the 2020 presidential election, this theory contends that the Constitution grants state legislatures the sole authority to regulate federal elections in their respective states, without oversight from state courts applying state constitutions.
Ahead of oral arguments, voting rights advocates are sounding the alarm about the severe repercussions of a finding accepting this theory and the authority it would give state legislatures, particularly after the 2020 presidential election.
Holder stated, “Having accepted the case, I would hope that the court would put a stake through this idea of autonomous state legislature doctrine and remove it from the books and our consideration for good.” It is, and I cannot stress this enough, a fringe notion that should be rejected by a margin of nine to zero.
The controversy before the Supreme Court originates from the process of redistricting done by the Republican-controlled General Assembly of North Carolina following the 2020 Census. New congressional boundaries enacted by the state legislature gave Republicans an edge for 10 of the state’s 14 House seats, but the state high court ruled that the map violated the state constitution because it constituted a political gerrymander.
The General Assembly enacted new voting lines, which a North Carolina trial court once again rejected. According to an analysis by the Campaign Legal Center, the court then approved a map created by a group of special masters and assistants that gave Republicans six seats to Democrats’ four, with the remaining four districts being more competitive.
Late in February, North Carolina Republicans filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to block the use of court-drawn maps for this year’s congressional elections. The Supreme Court denied the request, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch — said the court should’ve restored the district lines drawn by the state legislature. Alito wrote in an opinion that the case “presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law, namely the extent of a state court’s authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections.”
The Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court in March to determine whether state courts have the authority to change regulations governing the “times, places, and manners” of congressional elections, which they argued is a power granted only to state legislatures by the Elections Clause of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is anticipated to render a decision by the end of June.
»Eric Holder is “very anxious” about the Supreme Court elections case«