最高法院周四宣布，今年秋天将审理一起可能颠覆全国各州选举法的案件。
摩尔诉哈珀案聚焦于一张新的北卡罗来纳州投票地图，该地图是在共和党领导的州议会提出的早期地图被否决后，由法院任命的专家创建的。
北卡罗来纳州最高法院今年2月裁定，州议会提供的地图是党派性的选区划分，违反了州宪法中的言论自由、集会自由和平等保护条款。
但是，州议会将这一决定上诉到美国最高法院，最高法院同意处理重划选区的问题，并可能恢复共和党绘制的地图。
请愿者论点的核心是所谓的“独立的州立法机构”理论，这是一个由少数保守派倡导者推动的边缘法律概念，将赋予州立法机构广泛的权力，在没有州宪法或司法机构传统监督的情况下进行联邦选举，这些倡导者认为，他们无权干涉民选代表。
观察人士表示，最高法院的最终裁决可能会产生重大影响。
“这有可能在下届总统选举前以深远的方式改变游戏规则，”美国广播公司新闻政治主任里克·克莱因说。“取决于最高法院走多远，它几乎可以邀请共和党控制的立法机构重写数百年的法律，确保在一个州获得最多选票的候选人获得选举人票——甚至可以让立法机构自行挑选选举人。”
克莱因补充说:“这可能会使未来的州议会更容易在2020年大选的混乱后果中实际做特朗普盟友迫切希望做的事情。”。
“独立的州立法”理论认为，根据美国宪法的选举条款和选举人条款，州立法者可以决定如何进行选举，而不受州宪法、法院或州长否决权等其他政府行为体的制衡。
选举条款规定，“举行参议员和众议员选举的时间、地点和方式，应由各州立法机关规定;但国会可随时通过法律制定或修改此类规定，但参议员选举地点除外。”
选举人条款规定“各州应按照其立法机关所指示的方式任命一定数量的选举人，其人数应与该州在国会中有权选举的参议员和众议员的总数相等:但不得任命参议员、众议员或在合众国政府中担任信托或有报酬职务的人担任选举人。”
选举人条款是前总统唐纳德·特朗普及其盟友利用“假选举人”推翻他在2020年输给总统乔·拜登的失败阴谋的核心。
布伦南中心民主项目副主任托马斯·沃尔夫说，这一理论违背了宪法制定者的意图。
“这违背了200多年的实践，我们实际运作选举的方式，也违背了最高法院一个多世纪的先例，”沃尔夫告诉美国广播公司新闻。"作为一个政策问题，这也是灾难性的."
沃尔夫警告说，如果高等法院接受这一论点，可能会导致消除对投票歧视的保护，并剥夺选举管理人员有效管理和监管选举的能力。
北卡罗莱纳州最高法院在二月份表示，该理论将“产生荒谬和危险的后果。”
北卡罗来纳州众议院议长蒂姆·摩尔(Tim Moore)对美国最高法院受理此案的决定表示欢迎，他周四表示，他“相信”法官们会同意他们的观点，即美国宪法“明确授权大会划分选区”。
“这个案件不仅对北卡罗来纳州的选举诚信至关重要，而且对全国范围内的选举安全也有影响，”摩尔认为。
最高法院第一次面对这个案件是在三月份，当时北卡罗莱纳州议会寻求紧急救济。法官最终拒绝了这一请求，但三名保守派法官表示，他们会同意延缓北卡罗来纳州最高法院的命令。
“这个案件提出了一个异常重要且反复出现的宪法问题，即州法院有权拒绝州议会通过的用于进行联邦选举的规则，”塞缪尔·阿利托法官在异议中写道。克拉伦斯·托马斯法官和尼尔·戈萨奇法官也加入了进来。
无党派团体“保护民主”的法律顾问海伦·怀特在周四的新闻发布会上指出，最高法院仅在三年前就党派划分选区的问题做出了裁决。
在Rucho v. Common Cause一案中，最高法院表示，虽然它不会干预党派选区划分，但州法院和宪法是监管国会选举中选区划分不公的一种手段。
怀特说，如果最高法院现在采纳“独立的州立法机构”理论，这将是“他们自己对本案中的问题所做的激进转变。”
摩尔诉哈珀案将在今年10月开始的任期内，在九名法官面前进行辩论，并在2024年竞选前及时做出决定。
Supreme Court to hear redistricting case that could upend state election laws everywhere
The Supreme Court announced Thursday it will hear a case this fall that could upend state election laws across the country.
Moore v. Harper focuses on a new North Carolina voting map created by court-appointed experts after earlier maps proposed by the Republican-led state legislature were struck down.
The North Carolina Supreme Court in February ruled that the maps offered by the state general assembly were partisan gerrymanders, violating free speech, free assembly and equal protection provisions of the state constitution.
But the state legislature appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to take up the issue of redistricting and possibly restore the Republican-drawn map.
Central to the petitioners' argument is the so-called "independent state legislature" theory -- a fringe legal concept pushed by a small group of conservative advocates that would give state legislatures broad authority to run federal elections without the traditional oversight from a state constitution or judiciary, whom these advocates argue have no right to intrude on elected representatives.
Observers say there could be major ramifications from the Supreme Court's eventual decision.
"This has the potential to change the rules of the game in far-reaching ways in time for the next presidential election," ABC News Political Director Rick Klein said. "Depending on how far the Supreme Court goes, it could virtually invite Republican-controlled legislatures to rewrite centuries-old laws ensuring that the candidate who gets the most votes in a state gets its electoral votes -- and it even could free legislatures to pick electors on their own."
"It could wind up making it far easier for a future state legislature to actually do what Trump allies so desperately wanted done in the messy aftermath of the 2020 election," Klein added.
The "independent state legislature" theory argues that under the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause and Electors Clause, state legislators can determine how elections are conducted without checks and balances from the other governmental actors such as state constitutions, courts or gubernatorial vetoes.
The Elections Clause reads, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [choosing] Senators."
The Electors Clause states that "each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The Electors Clause was central to the unsuccessful plot by former President Donald Trump and his allies to use "fake electors" to overturn his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Thomas Wolf, deputy director with the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, said the theory contradicts the intent of the Constitution's framers.
"It's contrary to 200-plus years of practice, the way we actually run elections, and it's contrary to over a century's worth of Supreme Court precedent," Wolf told ABC News. "It's also just disastrous as a policy matter."
Wolf warned that the argument, if accepted by the high court, could lead to the elimination of protections against discrimination for voting and strip election administrators of their ability to efficiently run and regulate elections.
The North Carolina Supreme Court said back in February that the theory would "produce absurd and dangerous consequences."
North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to take up the case, stating on Thursday that he was "confident" the justices would agree with their view that the U.S. Constitution "explicitly gives the General Assembly authority to draw districts."
"This case is not only critical to election integrity in North Carolina, but has implications for the security of elections nationwide," Moore argued.
The Supreme Court first confronted the case in March, when North Carolina's state legislature sought emergency relief. The justices ultimately denied that request, but three conservative on the bench said they would have granted a stay of the North Carolina Supreme Court's order.
"This case presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law, namely, the extent of a state court's authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the dissent. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Helen White, counsel at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, in a press call Thursday noted the Supreme Court ruled on the matter of partisan gerrymandering just three years ago.
In Rucho v. Common Cause, the court said while it wouldn't step in to police partisan gerrymandering, state courts and constitutions were a means of regulating gerrymandering in congressional elections.
White said if the court were now to adopt the "independent state legislature" theory, it would be a "radical pivot from what they themselves have said about the issues in this case."
Moore v. Harper will be argued before the nine justices in the term beginning this October, with a decision handed down in time for the 2024 campaign.
