Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Moore v. Harper

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawElections ClauseJudicial ReviewState Constitutional Limits on Federal ElectionsElections Clausestate legislaturestate courtsjudicial review

Facts

North Carolina's General Assembly enacted a new congressional map after the 2020 census. Plaintiffs sued in state court, arguing that the map was an impermissible partisan gerrymander under provisions of the North Carolina Constitution, including the Free Elections Clause and equal protection, free speech, and free assembly clauses. The North Carolina Supreme Court held in Harper I that the map violated the State Constitution and rejected the legislature's argument that the federal Elections Clause gave it exclusive and independent authority over congressional redistricting. The legislative defendants then sought Supreme Court review on the Elections Clause issue.

Issue

Does the Elections Clause of Article I, Section 4 vest state legislatures with authority to regulate federal elections free from restrictions imposed under state law and enforced by state courts? Relatedly, may state courts review state legislatures' federal-election regulations for compliance with state constitutions?

Rule

The Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law. When a state legislature regulates federal elections, it exercises lawmaking authority subject to state constitutional restraints and ordinary state judicial review; however, state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review so as to intrude on the role the Federal Constitution assigns to state legislatures.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Oregon Legislature enacts new rules for congressional absentee ballots. Voters sue in Salem, arguing the rules violate the Oregon Constitution's free-expression and equal-privileges guarantees, and the Oregon Supreme Court agrees. Legislative leaders argue that because Article I assigns regulation of federal elections to the state legislature, Oregon courts lack any authority to review the statute under state constitutional provisions.

Who has the better argument?

Explanation. The better argument is the voters'. The governing rule is that the Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review. When a legislature regulates federal elections, it acts as a lawmaking body created and constrained by the state constitution as well as by the Federal Constitution. So ordinary state-court review for compliance with state constitutional provisions is permitted.