Common Cause’s legal team describes the dangers 무어 대 하퍼 case could pose to elections and the freedom to vote.

워싱턴 DC. —  Common Cause and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice held a media briefing Thursday, Oct. 27, outlining the legal arguments and strategy behind our fight to defend our democracy in 무어 대 하퍼. The U.S. Supreme Court case, stemming from the legal fight for fair maps in North Carolina, is scheduled for oral arguments on Dec. 7, 2022. 

This U.S. Supreme Court case involves a dangerous legal argument seeking to eliminate the checks and balances served by the state judiciary and, at its worst, could hand state lawmakers nearly unchecked power to manipulate elections. 

에이 짧은 was filed jointly by Common Cause, 하퍼, and League of Conservation Voters respondents last week, describing how North Carolina lawmakers’ desperate and dangerous arguments in 무어 미국 헌법의 문구, 구조, 역사와 일치하지 않으며, 수세기 동안 확립된 선례와도 모순됩니다. 

Common Cause의 전국 재분할 이사 캐세이 펭 정당이 투표 지도와 선거 규칙을 조작할 수 있다면 전국의 유권자들에게 잠재적으로 어떤 결과가 초래될지에 대해 이야기했습니다.

“Checks and balances are fundamental to our government and assumes that each part of the government plays an important role in making sure that we do not have runaway power for any one branch of government,” Feng said. “But the checks and balances function of our state courts could be wiped out in one decision. So what’s the solution? The first and most obvious one is a win before the Supreme Court.” 

핵심에 있는 법적 주장 무어 위험한 일이며 200년 이상의 법적 관례에 어긋난다고 말했습니다. 앨리슨 릭스, 이 사건에 대한 법률 자문 및 남부사회정의연합의 공동 집행이사. She discussed the joint brief as well the filings of 47 amicus briefs from a wide range of bipartisan leaders and legal scholars 

“The Framers knew when they were drafting the Elections Clause that state legislatures only exist because state constitutions created them and that the power to create state constitutions lies with the people,” Riggs said. “When forming this country and a government that would resist authoritarianism, [they] created healthy checks and balances that ultimately, would be politically responsive to the people itself. Judicial review, the ability of courts to check legislative bodies for compliance with constitutions, is a very important part of that.” 

Finally, J. Michael Luttig, the retired conservative federal appellate judge who recently joined Common Cause’s legal team in this major voting rights case, discussed the legal, historical, and practical arguments underlying our opposition in Moore v. Harper.

“This is the single most important case on American democracy, and for American democracy, in the nation’s history,” Luttig said. 

To interview our panelists, please contact Sarah Ovaska (소바스카@commoncause.org) 또는 Melissa Boughton(멜리사@scsj.org).

A recording of Thursday’s media briefing is available 여기.