Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n
2015 U.S. LEXIS 4253, 192 L. Ed. 2d 704, 135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term 'Legislature' in the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause refers to the lawmaking processes prescribed by a state's constitution, which can include direct lawmaking by the people through a voter-led initiative.
Facts:
- Historically, the Arizona Legislature was responsible for drawing congressional district maps following each decennial census.
- This process led to recurring controversies, accusations of partisan gerrymandering, and legal challenges to the maps drawn by the Legislature.
- In 2000, Arizona voters passed Proposition 106, a ballot initiative which amended the Arizona Constitution.
- Proposition 106 removed the authority to draw congressional district maps from the Arizona Legislature.
- The initiative vested this authority in a new, independent body, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
- The AIRC is composed of five members selected through a process involving leaders from both major political parties and Arizona's Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.
- Following the 2010 census, the AIRC approved and adopted a new congressional redistricting map for Arizona in January 2012.
Procedural Posture:
- The Arizona Legislature filed suit against the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
- The Legislature sought a declaration that Proposition 106 and the AIRC's congressional map were unconstitutional under the Elections Clause.
- A three-judge District Court panel was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court denied the AIRC's motion to dismiss the suit for lack of standing.
- The District Court, in a 2-1 decision, granted the AIRC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, upholding the constitutionality of the commission.
- The Arizona Legislature filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Arizona ballot initiative that removes congressional redistricting authority from the state legislature and vests it in an independent commission violate the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. The Arizona initiative creating an independent redistricting commission does not violate the Elections Clause because the term 'Legislature' in that clause encompasses the state's entire lawmaking apparatus as defined by its own constitution, including direct democracy by the people. The Court's reasoning is grounded in precedent, constitutional purpose, and federal statute. First, redistricting is a legislative function, and precedent like Smiley v. Holm and Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant has established that a state's lawmaking process can include the governor's veto and popular referenda. Second, the meaning of 'Legislature' is context-dependent; its lawmaking function under the Elections Clause is distinct from its electoral or ratifying functions in other parts of the Constitution. Third, the animating principle of the Constitution is popular sovereignty, and it would be perverse to interpret the Clause to prohibit the people from checking legislative self-interest in gerrymandering. Finally, Congress itself, in 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c), approved of states using their own redistricting methods by referring to redistricting done 'in the manner provided by the law thereof.'
Dissenting - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes. The Arizona initiative violates the Elections Clause because the term 'the Legislature' has an unambiguous original and contextual meaning: the state's institutional, representative lawmaking body. The majority's reinterpretation has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution. The Constitution uses the term 'Legislature' seventeen times, often explicitly distinguishing it from 'the People.' The very existence of the Seventeenth Amendment, which was required to change U.S. Senator selection from 'the Legislature' to 'the people,' proves the terms are not interchangeable. The Court's precedents, including Smiley v. Holm, have defined 'Legislature' as 'the representative body which ma[kes] the laws of the people.' By allowing the people to wholly exclude the representative body from the redistricting process, the majority erases the specific words 'by the Legislature thereof' from the Elections Clause.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
This case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. An intragovernmental dispute between two branches of a state government over the allocation of political power does not constitute a 'case' or 'controversy' under Article III of the Constitution. The role of the judiciary is to decide on the rights of individuals, not to referee power struggles between political bodies. Therefore, the Arizona Legislature lacks standing to bring this suit.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
This case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Arizona Legislature lacks Article III standing. However, the majority's decision on the merits is also incorrect. The Court's newfound deference to state ballot initiatives is inconsistent with its recent history of striking down popularly enacted state laws, such as those defining marriage. This selective deference reveals an inconsistent judicial attitude rather than a principled application of constitutional law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly empowers citizens in states with direct democracy mechanisms to enact election reforms, particularly those aimed at curbing partisan gerrymandering. By interpreting the Elections Clause functionally rather than formalistically, the Court allows 'the Legislature' to encompass the people themselves when acting as lawmakers. This precedent validates the use of independent redistricting commissions created by initiative and protects a wide range of other voter-enacted election laws from challenges that they unconstitutionally bypass the institutional state legislature. The ruling fortifies the role of states as 'laboratories of democracy' in the specific context of regulating federal elections.
Unlock the full brief for Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n