Term: 2014
Docket: 13-1314
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
- Pro
13-1314 AZ STATE LEGISLATURE V. AZ INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING DECISION BELOW: 997 F.Supp.2d 1047 FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IS POSTPONED TO THE HEARING OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1) DO THE ELECTIONS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 2 U.S.C. §2a(c) PERMIT ARIZONA’S USE OF A COMMISSION TO ADOPT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS? 2) DOES THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE HAVE STANDING TO BRING THIS SUIT? JURISDICTION NOTED 10/2/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: In a provision added by citizen initiative, the Arizona Constitution removes all authority to prescribe legislative and congressional redistricting from the Arizona State Legislature and places it in an unelected commission. The Legislature challenges this provision as to congressional redistricting as a violation of Article I, section 4, the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution. In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that removing the Legislature did not violate the Elections Clause. The question presented is: Does the provision of the Arizona Constitution that divests the Arizona Legislature of any authority to prescribe congressional district lines violate the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires that the time, place, and manner of congressional elections be prescribed in each state by the "Legislature thereof”? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: CV-12-01211-PHX-PGR-MMS-GMS
In the case of Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the commission by a 5-4 vote in 2014. The issue at hand was whether an independent redistricting commission could draw congressional districts or if this power should be reserved solely for state legislatures as per Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution (the Elections Clause). The court held that "legislature" can refer to any entity that makes laws and thus includes voter initiatives like those used to establish independent commissions in Arizona. This decision upheld Proposition 106 - passed by voters in Arizona - which transferred redistricting authority from lawmakers to an independent body with hopes of reducing gerrymandering.
In the dissenting opinion for Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito argued that the Constitution's Elections Clause gives state legislatures exclusive power to set rules for congressional elections. They contended that an independent commission created by a voter initiative is not part of "the legislature" as defined in this clause. The dissenters believed that while it may be appealing to remove partisan gerrymandering from redistricting processes, such changes should come through constitutional amendment rather than reinterpreting existing text. They held firm on their interpretation even though they acknowledged potential benefits of non-partisan commissions in drawing electoral districts fairly and impartially.
