ICYMI: NRF-Supported Respondents Make the Case to SCOTUS to Protect Checks and Balances
Contact
Jena Doyle
doyle@redistrictingfoundation.org
ICYMI: NRF-Supported Respondents Make the Case to SCOTUS to Protect Checks and Balances
“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.” – Eric H. Holder, Jr., the 82nd Attorney General of the United States
Pictured left to right: Olivia Mendoza, NRF’s Deputy Director of Litigation and Policy, Matt Mengert, NRF’s Legal and Policy Analyst, Brent Ferguson, NRF’s Senior Counsel, Graham White, Elias Law Group, Stanton Jones, Arnold & Porter, [Two people not pictured: Lali Madduri and Jacob Shelly, ELG], Marina Jenkins, NRF’s Director of Litigation and Policy and Abha Khanna, Partner at Elias Law Group and Counsel of Record for Harper Respondents, stand outside of the Supreme Court to speak with reporters following the oral argument in Moore v. Harper on December 7, 2022.
Washington, D.C. — On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard the 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. The NRF-supported respondents were represented before the Court by Neal Katyal, Partner for Hogan Lovells and former Acting Solicitor General of the United States.
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. The final map approved by the court allowed an equal number of Democrats and Republicans to be elected to the U.S House of Representatives, accurately reflecting the competitive nature of North Carolina.
On Sunday, Attorney General Eric Holder joined CBS Face The Nation to preview the consequential case. Following the oral argument, AG Holder joined Alex Wagner Tonight on MSNBC to discuss the stakes of Moore v. Harper. In case you missed it, here are some key quotes from AG Holder in response to the oral argument:
“I don’t think there is a minimalist decision. This is a theory that has no basis in law, no basis in history, it is a tool devised by Republicans to divert a core part of our democratic system. That is our system of checks and balances.”
“For any member of the Court to put his or her name behind a decision, even if it’s a dissenting opinion, to say there is some validity to this theory, calls into question where that justice is coming from.”
“We’re not talking about something theoretical. We only have to look at which the January 6 Committee exposed. It shows that John Eastman wanted to use this very theory as a way to subvert the peaceful transfer of power…the case before the Court deals with gerrymandering, but I think as Neal [Katyal] described it, the collateral damage that could be done with an inappropriate decision here is pretty vast. Our democracy could be harmed.”
In case you missed it, here is a sample of our coverage from this week:
MSNBC: VIDEO - Alex Wagner Tonight - Holder rips legal scheme to hijack elections as SCOTUS considers
CBS: VIDEO - Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan: Eric Holder ‘extremely concerned about Supreme Court Elections Case
WASHINGTON POST: Supreme Court to consider fundamental change in election authority
Excerpt:
“This case is nothing less than a direct challenge to our system of checks and balances. It’s truly a fringe, fringe theory,” said Eric H. Holder Jr., who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama.
AP: Supreme Court weighs ‘most important case’ on democracy
Excerpt:
“The bottom line is the impact of this fringe theory would be terrible,” said former Attorney General Eric Holder, chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “It could unleash a wave of gerrymandering from both parties.”
SIRIUS XM: AUDIO - Marina Jenkins on Moore v. Harper and North Carolina gerrymandering
ABC NEWS: Supreme Court hears case that could reshape US elections laws
Excerpt:
"At its core, this appeal is a dangerous and extreme attempt to eliminate accountability for state legislatures interested in gerrymandering with impunity," Marina Jenkins, a director at the National Redistricting Foundation, said in a statement ahead of this week's oral arguments.
###
