That case involves the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says the time, place and manner of Congressional elections shall be prescribed “in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Democrats say Legislature should be construed broadly and that state judges can check partisan lawmakers. But the North Carolina Supreme Court’s two decisions Friday underline how state judges can act as partisans and subvert democracy. …

In sum, the Democratic Justices gave themselves unchecked authority over redistricting. As Republican Chief Justice Paul Newby explained in a dissent, the majority’s vague criteria for judging maps “ensures that four members of this Court alone understand what redistricting plan is constitutionally compliant.”

Mr. Holder praised the decision, saying it “could influence the outcome of Moore v. Harper” since “the North Carolina Supreme Court clarified its role under state law as a check over the state legislature when it comes to redistricting” and “the Supreme Court of the United States will have to be held to that interpretation.”

Uh, no. The U.S. Supreme Court isn’t bound by state judges’ interpretations. While the Senate map, unlike the Congressional map, doesn’t implicate the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, Democratic Justices are again revealing their partisanship. …

Who better represents democracy in North Carolina—an elected Legislature, or four state judges who flip their judicial logic when it suits their partisan ends? Let’s not hear any more jabberwocky about judges subverting democracy if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Legislature means Legislature.

What do you think of Moore v. Harper? Share your thoughts and prayers below.

(Excerpt from The Wall Street Journal. Photo Credit: Adam Szuscik on Unsplash)