Eric Holder Statement on Moore v. Harper

Contact
Jena Doyle
doyle@redistrictingfoundation.org

Eric Holder Statement on Moore v. Harper

Washington, D.C. —  Today, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in Moore v. Harper, an appeal filed by North Carolina Republicans that seeks to give state legislatures near-total control over federal election laws, including but not limited to congressional redistricting. The National Redistricting Foundation (NRF), the 501(c)(3) affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, is supporting the Harper respondents in this case alongside Common Cause and the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters.

Moore v. Harper is an appeal of Harper v. Hall, a landmark state court case initiated by the NRF in which the North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the congressional map enacted by Republicans in the state legislature was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. As a result of that ruling, a state court ultimately adopted a fair congressional map. 

“In this case, North Carolina Republicans are using a truly fringe legal theory to try to undermine our system of checks and balances – an extreme and dangerous move in response to the North Carolina Supreme Court decision that held them accountable for violating the state constitution,” said Eric H. Holder, Jr., the 82nd Attorney General of the United States. “This should not be a difficult decision for the Court in favor of the respondents, one that would protect voters against extreme efforts to manipulate federal elections. Anything less than that is unacceptable. Should the Court endorse the petitioners’ theory, it would not only damage a cornerstone of our democracy, it could unleash a level of gerrymandering from both parties across the country that would do incalculable damage to our democracy. 

“Simply put: an embrace of the so-called independent state legislature theory would be bad for the nation. That plain fact is underscored by the overwhelming bipartisan opposition to the petitioners’ arguments, as well as more than a century of precedent, including the recent Rucho decision that explicitly recognized state courts’ power to interpret and enforce their state’s own constitution and laws, including to rein in partisan gerrymandering. It is my hope that the Court applies the law without agenda and rejects this fringe idea once and for all in order to protect our essential and long recognized system of checks and balances,” Holder concluded. 

###