Supreme Court rejects controversial election law theory

SERVICES. WHY YOUR NEXT PIZZA OR FLOWER DELIVERY COULD ALSO INCLUDE YOUR NEXT ORDER FROM THE ONLINE GIANT. >>> >>> AND ELECTION CASE RULING. THIS WENT AGAINST THE STATE LAW. NORTH CAROLINA STRUCK DOWN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING PLAN CALLING IT EXCESSIVELY PARTISAN. LEGISLATORS ARGUED STATE COURT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ROLL IN THE MATTER OF THESE MAPS. WE ARE AWAITING SEVERAL OTHER MAJOR DECISIONS INCLUDING DISCRIMINATION AND PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S PLAN TO FORGIVE STUDENT LOANS. >>> THE ONE THAT CAME DOWN TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT. WE HAVE EVAN HERE. HE IS ALSO THE CO-AUTHOR OF THE AMICUS BRIEF SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF JUSTICES ABOUT THIS CASE. IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU TO DISCUSS THIS. WHILE THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS DECISION, THAT HAS AN IMPORTANT FIVE AGAINST SEVERAL OTHER CASES. THERE ARE LIMITS ON WHAT THE COURTS CAN DO AND WHAT STATE COURTS CAN DO AND THAT IS WHAT THIS CASE WAS ABOUT. CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT THOSE IMPACTS AND WHAT THEY CAN BE FOR OTHER STATES WITH REDISTRICTING AND EFFORTS WITH REDISTRICTING? >> THIS IS A MAJOR DECISION. A BIPARTISAN DECISION. DEMOCRAY DODGED A BULLET TODAY. THE THEORY IS THAT LEGISLATURES ONLY GET TO DECIDE ALL OF THE RULES ABOUT HOW THESE ELECTIONS WERE CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES AND BY INFERENCE HOW TO CHOOSE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS IN PRESIDENTIAL RACES. THE COURT HELD CLEARLY THAT CONSTITUTIONS CAN PUT BOUNDARIES ON WHAT LEGISLATURES CAN DO. IN THIS CASE, WHAT THEY HELD WAS IF THE STATE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING OF DISTRICTS ONE STATE LEGISLATOR HAS TO LIVE WITH THESE RULES. THE STATE WAS ARGUING THAT IT WAS FREE TO ENACT WHATEVER KIND OF REACH IT WANTED TO NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT THE STATE CONSTITUTION HELD. THE FIRST IS THAT RULES AND STATE GOVERNOR VETOES CAN CONTROL WHAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE DOES. ú>> THE SECON HAPPENS WHEN WE GET TO NORMAL INTERPRETATIONS OF STATE LAW? THIS WAS WHAT WAS AT ISSUE IN THE ELECTION WHERE SOME PEOPLE WERE ARGUING STATE COURTS HAD STRAYED TOO FAR FROM THE WRITTEN STATUTES AND EXPANDED OPPORTUNITIES TO VOTE IN THE FACE OF THE PANDEMIC. THE COURT DID NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS. IT MADE CLEAR THAT MAYBE ANOTHER DAY IT WILL HAVE TO DECIDE, ARE THERE ANY LIMITS ON STATE COURT INTERPRETATION OF STATE LAW. THEY BASICALLY SAID AS LONG AS THE STATE COURTS FOLLOW ORDINARY RULES FOR INTERPRETING STATUTES, THEY SHOULD BE FINE. ONLY IF STATES DISTORT STATE LAW WITH THOSE STATE COURTS WILL THEY BE ACTING OUT OF BOUNDS. >> THEY ARE RESTORING A RULING THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL LINES LIMITED BLACK VOTERS IN THE STATE. LET ME GET YOUR TAKE ON WHAT THESE ELECTION CASES TELL US ABOUT THE IDEOLOGY OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT COMES TO REDISTRICTING AND ELECTION LAWS. >> IT'S INTERESTING. YESTERDAY'S CASE HAD TO DO WITH FEDERAL STATUTES, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. THERE WAS ANOTHER PARDON DISSES IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHERE THE SUPREME COURT, IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, REINFORCED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND ITS ABILITY TO REQUIRE STATES TO BE FAIR IN THE WAY THAT THEY DRAW LINES. ONE THING IT IS SHOWING IS THAT DESPITE THE CLEAR MOVE TOWARD THE RIGHT OF THIS CONSERVATIVE COURT, THERE STILL IS AT LEAST A MOVE TO SAY WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT RULES GOVERNING DEMOCRACY AND WHETHER IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CASE OR STATUTORY CASE LIKE YESTERDAY'S AND TWO WEEKS AGO. THE COURT SAID LET'S BE CAREFUL HERE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUNDATIONAL RULES OF DEMOCRACY AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Channel: CBS News

Views: 140,155

Keywords: north carolina, supreme court, legislature, election law, news, cbs news

Id: 1D83ttlA2bI

Length: 4min 50sec (290 seconds)

Published: Tue Jun 27 2023