Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Election Policy Logo.png
Redistricting
State-by-state
redistricting procedures
Majority-minority districts
Congressional district demographics
United States census,
2020
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted more broadly to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The court ruled that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto."[3][4]

    • Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. It is often a fiercely-contested issue, owing to perceived undue partisan influence in the process. Proponents of redistricting reform maintain that political parties and incumbents draw the district lines for their benefit at the expense of proportionality and fair representation. This practice is known as gerrymandering.

    The states have enacted a variety of redistricting reforms intended to make the process less partisan and more fair. According to The Washington Post, six states employed independent commissions to conduct congressional redistricting as of June 2015: Arizona, California, Idaho, Washington, Montana and Alaska. Had the court ruled in favor of the Arizona State Legislature in this case, independent redistricting commissions in these states might have been affected. Furthermore, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a broad assortment of voter-initiated state election laws could have been impacted had the court ruled against the Arizona redistricting commission.[5][6][7][8]

    Background

    Proposition 106

    See also: Arizona Creation of a Redistricting Commission, Proposition 106 (2000)

    On November 7, 2000, voters in Arizona approved Proposition 106, also known as the Constitutional Amendment Relating to Creation of a Redistricting Commission. The official ballot title read as follows:

    “ Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article IV, Part 2, Section 1, Constitution of Arizona; relating to ending the practice of gerrymandering and improving voter and candidate participation in elections by creating an independent commission of balanced appointments to oversee the mapping of fair and competitive congressional and legislative districts.[9][10] ”

    Supporters of Proposition 106 included the League of Women Voters, the Arizona School Boards Association and Janet Napolitano (D), then the Attorney General of Arizona. The measure was sponsored by the group Fair Districts, Fair Elections. That organization's chair, Jim Pederson, said, "When legislators draw their own lines the result is predictable. Self-interest is served first and the public interest comes in a distant second. Incumbent legislators protect their seats for today and carve out new congressional opportunities for their political future. ... Allowing legislators draw the lines is the ultimate conflict of interest."[9]

    Opponents of Proposition 106 included the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, then-Representative Jim Kolbe (R) and Barry M. Aarons, a senior fellow with Americans for Tax Reform. Aarons said, "The redistricting commission amendment is a flawed proposition which will reduce the input of the will of the people of Arizona and vest disproportionate influence in the hands of bureaucratic Washington D.C. lawyers of the federal Justice Department."[9]

    Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

    The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. The commission is composed of five members. Of these, four are selected by the majority and minority leaders of each chamber of the state legislature from a list of 25 candidates nominated by the state commission on appellate court appointments. These 25 nominees comprise 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 5 unaffiliated individuals. The four commission members appointed by legislative leaders then select the fifth member to round out the commission. The fifth member of the commission must belong to a different political party than the other commissioners. The governor, with a two-thirds vote in the Arizona State Senate, may remove a commissioner "for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office." The Arizona State Legislature may make recommendations to the commission, but ultimate authority is vested with the commission.[11][12][13]

    Case history

    1. June 7, 2012: The Arizona State Legislature filed a complaint "requesting declaratory relief as to the constitutionality of Prop. 106 and any congressional map created by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission."
    2. June 8, 2012: The state legislature requested that a three-judge panel be convened.[11]
    3. August 23, 2013: The United States District Court for the District of Arizona convened that panel.[11]
    4. February 24, 2014: In a two-to-one decision, the district court granted the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission's motion to dismiss and denied the legislature's motion for preliminary injunction. The court ruled "that the term 'legislature' as used in the Elections Clause encompasses a state's entire legislative process, and thus, Prop. 106 does not violate the Election Clause."[11]
    5. February 26, 2014: The legislature appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.[11]
    6. October 2, 2014: The Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case.
    7. March 2, 2015: Oral arguments took place.[14][15]
    8. June 29, 2015: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The court ruled that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto."[3]

    Ruling

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:[3][4]

    “ The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,” namely, “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.” The Elections Clause does not hinder that endeavor.[10] ”
    —Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined Ginsburg in the court's majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.[3][4]

    In his dissent, Roberts argued that the word "legislature" in Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution ought to be interpreted narrowly to mean the "representative body which makes the laws of the people."[3]

    “ The people of Arizona have concerns about the process of congressional redistricting in their State. For better or worse, the Elections Clause of the Constitution does not allow them to address those concerns by displacing their legislature. But it does allow them to seek relief from Congress, which can make or alter the regulations prescribed by the legislature.[10] ”
    —John Roberts

    Potential impact

    Had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Arizona State Legislature, the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions in other states might have been called into question. According to The Washington Post, six states employed independent commissions to conduct congressional redistricting as of June 2015: Arizona, California, Idaho, Washington, Montana and Alaska.[5]

    There was some question as to what impact a ruling in favor of the state legislature might have had on other voter-approved election laws in the states. During oral arguments on March 2, 2015, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said the following:[16]

    “ I mean, you take the 2011 law in Mississippi adopting voter ID requirements; 2007, Oregon, voting by mail; 1962, Arkansas, use of voting machines. All of things -- these things were done by referendum or by initiative with the legislative process completely cut out. So would all of those be unconstitutional as well?[10] ”
    —Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "Banning lawmaking by initiative to direct a State’s method of apportioning congressional districts would do more than stymie attempts to curb partisan gerrymandering, by which the majority in the legislature draws district lines to their party’s advantage. It would also cast doubt on numerous other election laws adopted by the initiative method of legislating."[3]

    In March 2015, the Brennan Center for Justice identified a series of election laws that could have been at risk had the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's redistricting commission was unconstitutional. These included 21 state laws adopted via citizen ballot initiative and 45 adopted via legislative referral or constitutional amendment. The table below details the relevant states and initiatives (click "[show]" to display the table's contents).[8]

    Citizens’ Districts Preservation Act

    On May 21, 2015, Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) and Alan Lowenthal (D-California) introduced HR 2501, the Citizens' Districts Preservation Act. Had it been enacted, the bill would have authorized the maintenance of congressional districts drawn by independent commissions until the next redistricting cycle had the United States Supreme Court ruled in Arizona State Legislature vs. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission that such commissions, and the lines they draw, were unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate "the times, places and manner" of congressional elections. The bill was rendered moot by the court's decision.[17][3]

    See also

    External links

    Additional reading

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
    2. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Montana and Alaska each have only one delegate in the United States House of Representatives.
    6. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court takes up highly political Arizona redistricting case," March 2, 2015
    7. ↑ National Public Radio, "Supreme Court Seems Divided Over Independent Redistricting Commissions," March 2, 2015
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Brennan Center for Justice, "Could the Supreme Court Make Dozens of State Election Laws Unconstitutional?" accessed March 6, 2015
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Arizona Secretary of State, "2000 Ballot Propositions and Judicial Performance Review - Proposition 106," accessed March 6, 2015
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. - Appellant's Jurisdictional Statement," accessed March 6, 2015
    12. ↑ Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, "Home page," accessed March 6, 2015
    13. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Arizona," accessed April 17, 2015
    14. ↑ The Huffington Post, "GOP Challenge To Arizona Redistricting Commission Goes To Supreme Court," October 2, 2014
    15. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," accessed March 6, 2015
    16. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Arizona State Legislative v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission - Oral Arguments Transcript," March 2, 2015
    17. ↑ Breitbart News Network, "Bi-Partisan Bill to Preserve Redistricting Commission Maps, If SCOTUS Tosses," May 22, 2015
    Flag of Arizona
    v • e
    State of Arizona
    Phoenix (capital)
    Elections

    What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

    Government

    Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arizona_State_Legislature_v._Arizona_Independent_Redistricting_Commission&oldid=9366341"