What Is the Independent State Legislature Theory?

United States Constitution in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” This clause is known as the Elections Clause. This site provides the following information.

Known as the Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 provides for Congress and state legislatures to regulate the Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. Under the Elections Clause, each state establishes how it will hold congressional elections, subject to Congress adopting or altering the state requirements (except as to the place of choosing Senators). The Elections Clause’s Times, Places and Manner encompasses a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns. States and Congress may also establish sanctions for violating election laws and procedures for recounts and primaries. The Elections Clause, however, does not permit states or Congress to set voter qualifications for congressional elections, which, under the Constitution, must be the same qualifications necessary to vote for the most numerous branch of the state legislature. Likewise, the Elections Clause does not allow states or Congress to change the qualifications to be a Member of the House of Representatives or the Senate, which are stipulated at Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for the House and Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 for the Senate.

By providing Congress power to preempt state election procedures, the Framers sought to prevent states from thwarting the Federal Government’s operation by using state law to manipulate or preclude elections for the House of Representatives….

With above information in mind, consider a new decision by the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Katelynn Richardson, the Justices ruled 6-3 today in Moore v. Harper to reject the “independent state legislature theory,” the idea that legislatures have unrestricted power under the Constitution to administer federal elections without review from state courts.

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s elections clause “does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.” The case stems from the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in February 2022 to toss a congressional map drawn by the Republican-led legislature after the 2020 census as “an egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketani Brown Jackson.

“State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause,” Roberts wrote. “But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review. In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution.”

Richardson explained that the Supreme Court originally determined that the Justices did not need to decide in the case because the North Carolina Supreme Court had already “reversed its 2022 ruling on April 28, finding that it did not have the authority to review the map under the state constitution.”

Because of the decision made in North Carolina, the Biden administration called for the case to be dismissed. However, state legislatures wanted the Justices to rule on the case “because the state court did not touch the federal ‘independent state legislature’ question, which would likely come before the Supreme Court again.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion. Thomas wrote that the case is “indisputably moot” because “the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned its judgment, calling the majority opinion ‘plainly advisory.’”