This time in NC.

Not only did the Court Steiner the gerrymandering as it had done earlier in the year in Alabama. The Court rejected the Sovereign State Legislature theory the Legislature based their power to draw the map on.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf

https://www.politico.com/news/...rymandering-00094433

I am pretty sure this is the case the NC S. Ct. Reversed itself on.

Bad Year for GOP maps.
AL and NC GOP maps void.
Louisiana nap creating a new African American majority district upheld.

The Republicans try to rig voting on racial bases, yet we're not supposed to call them racists.

SCOTUS recognition that state GOP legislative majorities have to be reined in per the Constitution in order to prevent them from creating perpetual GOP majorities by gerrymandering. I am surprised.

Incredibly important decision.

There is something really cool in both the Opinion and the Dissent being state legislatures are exercising a delighted power from the Federal Constitution (through the Electoral Clause) when setting the time, place, and manner for the election of House representatives and a lessor extent Senators.


This is important because it highlights the right to vote for House of Representatives is a Federal Right that state legislatures are facilitating. We often say that elections are state legislatures proghtive. This is incorrect. The power to administer elections for which the House seat is in play for is not a power reserved to the state legislature. That election process is a power delighted to the state legislature by the Federal Constitution. This Federal Power being delegated to state legislators is clear because the Federal Government through the Constitution reserved unto itself the power through an Act of Congress to supersede, state legislature action. This opinions embrace of a delegated state power strengthens the ground the Voting Rights Act sets on.

Yet, the Alabama case concerning the Voting Rights did not address this line of legal analysis. It appears bc the majority in that case assumed the Voting Rights Act as it currently interpreted was constitutional.

This Opinion means the right to vote in elections when a House or Senate seat is up for grabs is a Federal Right. I note that No Supreme Court case has ever held that the “right to vote” is a Fundamental Right. However, this NC case came close. In fact, the Opinion citing the NC State Constitution even says voting is a Fundamental Right. This is of course, a Fundamental Right of NC. The Opinion never returns to this pronouncement of a “Fundamental Right.” The Petitioners threw that in their pleadings to see if the S. Ct., would swallow the hook.

Another interesting point is that while the Federal Constitution does delegate this electoral power to state legislatures. That denigration is subject to 1) The process all state laws are subject to enactment including Governor Veto and referendum, 2) Authority of the State Constitution and 3) Judicial Review.

Here again, we see the importance of the right to vote as a “Fundamental Right.” If the NC State Constitution declares voting as a “Fundamental Right,” then the NC Legislature the the Elections Clause cannot deny that right without due process subject to Judicial Review of strict scrutiny. The Opinion again, did not address application of a “Fundamental Right.”

An Aside: In the paragraph addressing legislative process for adoption the Court cites a case that may have allowed “tax payer standing.” A citizen brought the action to the S. Ct. Tax Payer Standing has long sense been rejected.

Tax Payer Standing is when a person sued to enforce a law or reg that person feels is not being followed by the government body, but has not been personally injured by the action. Maybe, the citizen was being directly affected by the Gov veto being ignored, but I do not see how.

Do you think I am far off Roland?