The North Carolina Supreme Court has reversed its previous decision that invalidated the state's Republican-drawn voting maps, citing partisan gerrymandering claims as a political matter outside the court's jurisdiction. The 5-2 vote in favor of dismissing the underlying lawsuit paves the way for the US Supreme Court to possibly bypass the dispute in the third time the state's high court has reheard such a case in the past 30 years.

"Our constitution expressly assigns the redistricting authority to the General Assembly subject to explicit limitations in the text. Those limitations do not address partisan gerrymandering. It is not within the authority of this Court to amend the constitution to create such limitations on a responsibility that is textually assigned to another branch," wrote North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby, a Republican, in the majority opinion.

The court's previous Democratic majority had declared the GOP-drawn map unconstitutional, and after Republicans regained control, the party's new 5-2 majority granted a request to rehear the case, leading to a 4-3 Democratic majority decision last December.

In dissent, Justice Anita Earls criticized the Republican majority's decision as a violation of the state's constitution, arguing that it paves the way for "extreme partisan gerrymanders favoring Republicans," and a "betrayal to the democratic values upon which our constitution is based." Her dissent was joined by Justice Michael Morgan.

The decision has potentially significant implications for a pending US Supreme Court case that deals with the theory of independent state legislatures, which holds that state courts and constitutions cannot limit legislatures' authority to regulate federal elections. Following the 2019 decision to strike down the maps, the high court agreed to hear an appeal from Republican lawmakers that advanced the maximalist independent state legislature theory.

If the court dismisses the appeal, the rehearing decision means that the existing Republican-drawn map will remain in place. The legal dispute also involves the state's voter ID law and voting rights for felons out on probation or parole.