Moore v. Harper, decided by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, is being given a partisan reading by public commentators. Some claim it repudiates former President Donald Trump’s accusations that the 2020 election was stolen. Others see it as a “win” for democracy, stopping attempts to “hijack” elections .

But the decision itself defies these easy categorizations. The justices’ opinions focused on the meaning of the “Elections Clause” found in Article I, §4 of the United States Constitution . This text states, “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of ch[oo]sing Senators.”

North Carolina’s legislature had drawn new congressional districts in 2021. In 2022, the state’s Supreme Court struck down that map as a "partisan gerrymander," saying doing so violated the state’s constitution. The state legislature sued, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Elections Clause made it the sole determiner of federal election laws in the state. Therefore, the legislature was not subject to the state’s constitution or to the state courts’ judicial review when enacting federal election rules like drawing congressional district maps.

The court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against this claim, saying that state legislatures did not have a perfectly free hand on these matters. They remained bound by state constitutions and subject to judicial review when making federal election law. The court amassed persuasive evidence in so arguing.

For one, the majority pointed to the logic of government based upon constitutions. People establish constitutions as fundamental laws in order to create, empower, and restrain governments to serve the people’s intended purposes. Thus, state legislatures were the creation of the states’ citizens through their states’ constitutions. While the U.S. Constitution stated the legislature must ultimately make state election law, it did not deny that state legislatures remained subject in that lawmaking to the source of their general legislative power.

The court bolstered this logic by giving examples where state constitutions regulated conditions for federal elections very close to the U.S. Constitution’s ratification. Yet no serious challenges emerged to them from those still living who partook in crafting and ratifying. Previous Supreme Court precedent, too, consistently sided with the claim that state legislatures remained subject to their own constitutions in exercising legislative power over federal elections.

For another, the Supreme Court argued that state courts could review legislatures’ federal election laws. This point followed from the first. If legislatures remained subject to their state constitutions on this issue, then what entity could assess whether the legislature crossed the legal line? Here the court affirmed judicial review as an essential component of judicial power in a constitutional system. Judges decide cases and controversies, state and federal, by applying the law to determine who should win the litigation. Thus, they provide a legitimate forum to determine if state legislatures followed their own constitutions in making federal election law.

Though convincing on these points, the majority’s reasoning fell short in other ways. Even if the “Elections Clause” doesn’t give state legislatures unquestionable authority, it still establishes real power for legislatures that state constitutions and state courts cannot violate. The majority admitted this in general but failed to take the necessary steps to vindicate that point.

First, they refused to revisit a 2013 case out of Arizona that permitted states to remove state legislatures from control of redistricting laws. It is one thing to hold legislatures to account based on a law higher than itself. It is another to transfer legislative power out of the institution the U.S. Constitution demands make the ultimate call. This point also holds ramifications for state bureaucrats and what they can do without legislative ground in crafting or changing election rules.

Second, the majority couldn’t agree on a standard by which to determine when state constitutions or state courts actually did violate the “Elections Clause.” With no set standard, we do not have clear enough lines going forward, asking for trouble in 2024.

What we did get from the court mostly saw the Constitution right. But for the sake of future elections, let’s hope we eventually get more than Moore.

Adam Carrington is an assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College.