Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n
| Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 2, 2015 Decided June 29, 2015 |
|
| Full case name | Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 13–1314 |
| Citations | 576 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Prior history | 997 F. Supp. 2d 1047 |
| Holding | |
| (1) Petitioners have standing; (2) 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. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Thomas, Alito |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| 2 U.S.C. §2a(c) | |
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a 2015 United States Supreme Court case wherein the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission.
The Arizona Constitution (Art. IV, pt. 1, §1) lets voters adopt laws and constitutional amendments by ballot initiative. Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106 in 2000 to address the problem of gerrymandering by creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). The Arizona Legislature sued in 2012, arguing that the creation of the AIRC violated the Elections Clause of the U. S. Constitution, which says “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.”
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, dividing two to one, rejected the Legislature’s complaint, finding that prior Supreme Court decisions “demonstrate that the word ‘Legislature’ in the Elections Clause refers to the legislative process used in [a] state, determined by that state’s own constitution and laws,” and that the lawmaking power in Arizona “plainly includes the power to enact laws through initiative,”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. The Court affirmed the District Court's ruling, holding that "[r]edistricting is a legislative function to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum, Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U. S. 565, 567, and the Governor’s veto, Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 369. While exercise of the initiative was not at issue in this Court’s prior decisions, there is no constitutional barrier to a State’s empowerment of its people by embracing that form of lawmaking."
...
Wikipedia