The U.S. Supreme Court is contemplating a significant election case involving North Carolina that, regardless of its outcome, will have a significant impact on the 2024 election.

The case centers on a constitutional theory referred to as the “independent state legislature theory.” State legislatures, not state courts or governors, have considerable control over the administration of federal elections within their respective states, according to proponents.

The Supreme Court is presently considering Moore v. Harper, a case that specifically addresses the theory. Concerns exist, however, that the court may not reach a comprehensive decision on the issue prior to the 2024 elections.

According to the Washington Examiner:

Moore v. Harper is a dispute over the North Carolina Supreme Court’s rejection of a Republican-backed redistricting plan for being too partisan.

Republicans filed a challenge to the state’s highest court, but conservatives were able to regain control of the court. Subsequently, the court with a Republican majority of 5 to 2 decided to rehear the redistricting case. Late last month, the court overturned its prior ruling, which was the basis for the outstanding Moore v. Harper case before the Supreme Court.

Currently, it is uncertain whether the Supreme Court will ultimately render a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the independent state legislature theory.

This uncertainty arises in part from significant questions regarding standing, especially after the North Carolina state Supreme Court reversed the ruling under consideration, as reported by the news source.

"The federal government, state of North Carolina and a group of voters urged the Supreme Court Thursday to drop Moore v. Harper and dismiss the case as moot." https://t.co/CDMKeipRBw

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) May 13, 2023

“Should the high court fail to weigh in on the issue, state legislatures may feel emboldened to have free reign with gerrymandering, election integrity laws, and more, likely drawing major legal challenges,” the Examiner noted further.

In order to determine if it still had jurisdiction over Moore v. Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court previously requested additional briefing materials for Moore v. Harper. The request suggested that the justices were considering whether to rule on the issue or dismiss it.

ICYMI from Friday:

3 important rulings from new conservative North Carolina Supreme Court.

Reaffirming our elected state representatives–not activist Democrat judges–decide the election rules.

1. "Political gerrymandering" is a made-up legal theory by Democrats, to steal…

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) May 1, 2023

In a short order, the court instructed the parties to submit “supplemental letter briefs” addressing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in the case.

Supporters of the independent legislature theory say that it’s based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution’s elections clause: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, when a number of state courts and governors approved changes to voting procedures due to the COVID pandemic, the majority of conservative experts and organizations have deemed the outcome of this case crucial.

Previously, Jason Snead of the Honest Elections Project told the Examiner that a ruling invalidating the theory could “leave the door wide open for the Left’s anti-democracy campaign, which has flooded the courts with politicized lawsuits and created chaos in our elections.”

However, legal experts on the left do not want the Supreme Court to adjudicate at all.

More on this story via Conservative Brief:

“The letter my firm filed today in the dangerous Independent State Legislature theory case (Moore v. Harper) was short, sweet, and 100% correct. ‘The Harper Respondents believe there is no non-frivolous basis for jurisdiction here,’” tweeted Marc Elias, a prominent lawyer who has done work on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and whose name was linked to the 2016 Clinton campaign. CONTINUE READING…