Let’s pick up where we left off last week.

One of the admirable–indeed, exemplary–qualities of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and of her successor, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is that one almost never has to read any of their sentences twice to understand them.

Maybe, in reading last week’s column, you agreed with Barrett’s opinion in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174.

Maybe you didn’t.

Either way, you didn’t have to read any of her sentences twice to understand them.

And if you disagreed with her Glacier opinion, you, faithful reader of this column, would understand an assertion that her holding against the Teamsters local doesn’t make her anti-Teamsters, anti-organized labor, or anti-union member.

Any more than Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2023 holding against North Carolina General Assembly Republicans in Moore v. Harper makes him anti-North Carolina, anti-North Carolina General Assembly, or anti-Republican.

Instead, Moore exemplifies Roberts’s clarity. His opinions–not just Moore–are worth reading. Not just because he’s the chief justice but because they’re clear.

* * *

Which brings us to Moore.

The U.S. Constitution has both an Electors Clause and an Elections Clause. They differ.

The Electors Clause–in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2–provides: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors … .”

Moore addresses the Elections Clause, which–in in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1–provides: “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 ch(oo)sing Senators.”

In Moore, the question on the merits is: When state legislatures act under the Elections Clause, may state courts review the actions for compliance with state law?

The answer, Roberts writes, is “yes.”

Joining Roberts’s opinion were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kananaugh, Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Dissenting for varying reasons were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neal Gorsuch.

* * *

In reading Roberts’s explanation, please notice that–as with Barrett’s opinion in Glacier–you don’t have to read any of his sentences twice to understand them.

“Since early in our (n)ation’s history, courts have recognized their duty to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts.

“We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.

“A state legislature’s ‘exercise of … authority’ under the Elections Clause … must be in accordance with the method which the (s)tate has prescribed for legislative enactments.”

Moore addresses redistricting for the U.S. House of Representatives.

“(R)edistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the (s)tate’s prescriptions for lawmaking.

“‘Nothing in (the Elections) Clause instructs, nor has (the Supreme) Court ever held, that a state legislature may prescribe regulations on the time, place, and manner of holding federal elections in defiance of provisions of the (s)tate’s constitution.’

“A state legislature may not ‘create congressional districts independently of’ requirements imposed ‘by the state constitution with respect to the enactment of laws.’

“(W)hen legislatures make laws, they are bound by the provisions of the very documents that give them life. Legislatures, the (f)ramers recognized, ‘are the mere creatures of the (s)tate (c)onstitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators.’

“When a state legislature carries out its constitutional power to prescribe rules regulating federal elections, the ‘commission under which’ it exercises authority is twofold. The legislature acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution, and as the entity assigned particular authority by the (f)ederal Constitution. Both constitutions restrain the legislature’s exercise of power.

In other words, “when state legislatures act pursuant to their Elections Clause authority, they engage in lawmaking subject to the typical constraints on the exercise of such power.

“(S)tate legislatures remain bound by state constitutional restraints when exercising authority under the Elections Clause.”

* * *

With New York facing another congressional redistricting in 2024, don’t be surprised if the players are reading Roberts’s opinion in Moore and just maybe taking a few notes.

Dr. Randy Elf’s most recent efforts to write briefs without making anyone read a sentence twice are at https://works.bepress.com/elf/221 and https://works.bepress.com/elf/222.

COPYRIGHT – 2024 BY RANDY ELF