Supreme Court safeguards the county role in federal elections administration in landmark Moore v. Harper decision

Image of GettyImages-1395752818.jpg

Key Takeaways

On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Moore v. Harper, a historic election law case. In its landmark decision, the Court rejected the argument, known as the Independent State Legislature Theory (ISLT), that state legislatures have exclusive power to set rules regarding federal elections. This important ruling preserves the authority, flexibility and discretion needed by county governments to fulfill our duty to administer free and fair elections and maintain the integrity and security of elections at the local level.

Moore v. Harper involved a dispute over the legality of the 2020 North Carolina congressional districting map, which was drawn by the state legislature only to be invalidated as partisan gerrymandering by the state supreme court. The legislature sued, arguing via the ISLT that the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution gives the state legislature, with no oversight by the state court, the authority to oversee federal elections. In its most extreme interpretation, the ISLT would have far-reaching consequences prohibiting any entity other than a state legislature, including local governments, from setting rules or making decisions related to federal elections.

While states play an instrumental role in our nation’s elections, counties and other local governments run elections on the ground. In almost every state, counties run the day‐to‐day operations of elections, and in every state, elections are broken down to local precincts for voting and administration. This means local governments are responsible for carrying out various key functions, such as identifying and managing polling locations, printing ballots, allocating and protecting voting machines, recruiting and training poll workers and ensuring the accessibility, integrity and efficiency of the voting process.

NACo joined with the National League of Cities, International Municipal Lawyers Association, International County/City Managers Association and U.S. Conference of Mayors to file an amicus brief warning that, if adopted, the ISLT could create an unworkable, bifurcated election system for federal elections (in which state legislatures could operate unchecked by state constitutions and state judicial review) and state elections (where those normal checks are in place.) The brief further argued that these implications would jeopardize localities’ ability to administer elections smoothly and efficiently.

From a practical standpoint, the Court’s decision will not impact North Carolina’s congressional maps. The makeup of the North Carolina Supreme Court changed after the November 2022 election, after which it reheard the case and reversed the ruling at the heart of the dispute. However, by rejecting the ISLT and preserving the status quo, the Supreme Court has created certainty and clarity for county governments tasked with administering elections. Counties applaud this decision, which safeguards our critical role in running elections.

Additional Resources

 

Attachments

Related News

1162410512
Advocacy

NACo submits comments on 2030 Census Address Update Program

On April 20, 2026, NACo submitted formal comments to the U.S. Census Bureau on the proposed reinstatement of the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Operation for the 2030 Census. The Bureau had issued a Federal Register notice in February 2026 opening a 60-day public comment period on the program's design before submitting it to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. 

Image of Capitol-trees_1_0_0_1.jpg
Advocacy

Senate passes budget resolution kicking off reconciliation 2.0 to fund DHS and CBP

On April 21, U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) unveiled a budget resolution to advance a party-line reconciliation package focused on immigration enforcement and funding for agencies within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The resolution is the first step in a two-part process aimed at producing final legislation by June 1.

1768217932
News

NACo Legal Advocacy: Chatrie v. United States

On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Chatrie v. United States which asks the court if and when the collection of data through geofencing constitutes a violation of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. It specifically focuses on whether the execution of a geofence warrant, issued by a judge and directing a third-party provider to disclose location history data for devices present near the scene of a crime during a limited time window, constitutes an unreasonable search.