Justices Fail To Back Constitutional Provision Protecting State Legislatures

In addition to arguing that the North Carolina Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering, the state legislature argued that the U.S. Constitution's elections clause gives state legislatures the authority to regulate federal elections without interference by state courts.

State legislatures are also subject to federal laws, such as the Voting Rights Act, that are implemented to enforce provisions of the U.S. Constitution, such as the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, all of which acts as a check on the actions of the state legislatures.

Going all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, and citing numerous other precedents, including the more recent Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the majority said that while state legislatures prescribe the rules concerning federal elections, they remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.

Roberts said the court had previously dismissed the argument that the elections clause divests state constitutions of the power to enforce checks against the exercise of legislative power and that historical practices confirm that state legislatures remain bound by state constitutional restraints when exercising authority under the election clause.

He concluded that the authority of state courts to review the decisions of state legislatures with respect to federal elections under state law is not unbounded, and that such state court judgments could themselves be subject to further federal court review.

While joining the majority opinion, Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurrence stating his view that in future cases in which federal courts may be asked to review whether state court decisions invalidating the actions of state legislatures on state law grounds, federal judges should adopt the standard previously articulated by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.

This "Federalization of state constitutions will serve mainly to swell federal-court dockets with state constitutional questions in the midst of quickly evolving, politically charged controversies, and the winners of federal elections may be decided by a federal court's expedited judgment that a state court exceeded 'the bounds of ordinary judicial review' in construing the state constitution." 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/06/27/supreme-court-fails-uphold-constitutional-provision-protecting-state-legislatures/