Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 36

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–1271 
_________________ 

TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS 
SPEAKER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. REBECCA HARPER, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF 
NORTH CAROLINA 

[June 27, 2023] 

Ante,  at  26. 

for  compliance  with 

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. 
I  join  the  Court’s  opinion  in  full.    The  Court  today 
correctly  concludes  that  state  laws  governing  federal 
elections  are  subject  to  ordinary  state  court  review,
including 
the  relevant  state 
constitution.  Ante, at 15, 26, 29.  But because the Elections 
Clause  assigns  authority  respecting  federal  elections  to 
state  legislatures,  the  Court  also  correctly  concludes  that
“state  courts  do  not  have  free  rein”  in  conducting  that 
review. 
Therefore,  a  state  court’s 
interpretation  of  state  law  in  a  case  implicating  the 
Elections Clause is subject to federal court review.  Ante, at 
26–30;  see  also  Bush  v.  Palm  Beach  County  Canvassing 
Bd.,  531  U. S.  70,  76–78  (2000)  (unanimously  concluding
that a state court’s interpretation of state law in a federal 
election  case  presents  a  federal  issue);  cf.  Democratic 
National  Committee  v.  Wisconsin  State  Legislature,  592 
U. S.  ___,  ___,  n. 1  (2020)  (KAVANAUGH,  J.,  concurring  in
denial  of  application  to  vacate  stay)  (slip  op.,  at  9,  n. 1).
Federal  court  review  of  a  state  court’s  interpretation  of 
state  law  in  a  federal  election  case  “does  not  imply  a
disrespect  for  state  courts  but  rather  a  respect  for  the 
constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures.”  Bush