Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
The Tuesday Count: SCOTUS to determine fate of independent redistricting commission
October 7, 2014
Edited by Tyler King
 |
|---|
|
The fate of independent congressional redistricting commissions is in the hands of the United States Supreme Court. Arizona's legislature is trying to wrest control of the redistricting process from a commission established by the voter-approved Proposition 106, with the battle ultimately coming down to how to interpret Section 4 of Article I of the United States Constitution. In Sacramento, California, constituents may vote to establish an independent commission to redraw city council districts, among other things, via Measure L in November.
Arizona's Proposition 106 to go before Supreme Court
In 2000, Arizonans revoked the legislature's power to re-draw legislative and congressional districts by voting "yes" on Proposition 106. The ballot measure was designed to stymie gerrymandering by creating a redistricting commission independent of the state legislature. Since 2010, Republicans have had a heated relationship with the new Independent Redistricting Commission.[1] Led by Senate President Andy Biggs (R-12) and House Speaker Andy Tobin (R-1), the legislature filed a lawsuit against the commission in early 2014, saying the independent redistricting commission, whether voter-approved or not, violates Section 4 of Article I of the United States Constitution, which reads:[2]
| “ | 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 chusing Senators.[3] | ” |
The "Legislature thereof," according to the U.S. District Court for Arizona, is not the aggregate of legislators, but the lawmaking process of the state. Therefore, Proposition 106 is constitutional. The Arizona Legislature, in response, appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[1]
On October 2, 2014, the nation's highest court added Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission to its docket for the upcoming term. The court might not rule on the issue, however, since the justices are asking the appellant - the Arizona Legislature - whether the body even has standing to bring the case forward.[4] A ruling in favor of the legislature would also jeopardize California's Proposition 20, which was approved by voters in 2010.[1]
Spotlight
City of Sacramento "Strong Mayor" Mayor-Council Form of Government Charter Amendment, Measure L (November 2014): Voters in California's capital will decide this fall whether to give mayor Kevin Johnson and all mayors going forward much greater control over Sacramento government by approving Measure L, which establishes the strong mayor form of government, converting the mayor from a glorified council member to the chief executive officer of the city, with vetoing power and the ability to hire and fire the city manager.[5]
Supporters say the strong mayor government will promote efficiency and eliminate bureaucratic road blocks to progress. They also stress the importance of other provisions contained in Measure L, such as an independent budget analyst, an Ethics Committee, a Neighborhood Advisory Committee and, most importantly, an independent citizens' redistricting commission responsible for modifying council district boundaries after the census. Currently, the city council is responsible for the restructuring of its own districts.[5][6]
Opponents say this measure "hands power to Mayor Johnson on a silver platter" and makes it easier for the mayor to ignore the public. They also argue that Measure L gives the mayor too much control over the city's governance and will result in voters having much less power in the city, with more power in the hands of a single person. Opponents insist the proposed checks and balances in Measure L are not enough to prevent the mayor from essentially controlling the city and all city projects under the strong mayor form of government.[5][6]
Other measures in the news
- Massachusetts Casino Repeal Initiative, Question 3 (2014): U.S. Sen. Ed Markey is latest high-profile Democrat to oppose overturning casino law.[7]
- Mississippi Public School Support Amendments, Initiative 42 and Alternative 42 (2015): Supporters of increased public school funding say they have enough signatures.[8]
- California Proposition 67, Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum (2016): Group of plastic bag manufacturers threaten veto referendum over California's SB 270.[9]
See also
| 2014 ballot measures |
| Tuesday Count • 2014 Scorecard |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 The State, "Justices to review Arizona districting commission," October 2, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," accessed October 4, 2014
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ SCOTUS blog, "Fate of nonpartisan redistricting on the line," October 2, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Sacramento County Elections Office website, "Ballot information for Measure L," archived October 6, 2014
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 The State Hornet, "Measure L hands power to Mayor Johnson on a silver platter," October 2, 2014
- ↑ MassLive, "Sen. Ed Markey says he will vote to uphold Massachusetts casino law," September 5, 2014
- ↑ WMC Action News 5, "Amendment backers say enough voters have signed," October 6, 2014
- ↑ Chicago Tribune, "California governor signs phase-out of plastic bags," September 30, 2014
