Redistricting commissions
 |
redistricting procedures |
|---|
2020 |
|
An independent redistricting commission is a body vested with the authority to draft and implement electoral district maps. The composition of independent commissions varies from state to state. However, In all cases, the direct participation of elected officials is limited. In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, ruling 5-4 that independent redistricting commissions do not violate the United States Constitution.[1][2]
Background
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015, established the constitutionality of the use of independent commissions in congressional redistricting. 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 encompass the legislative powers of the state, including voter initiatives and referenda.[4][5]
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:[1][6]
| “ | 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.[7] | ” |
| —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.[1][6]
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."[1]
| “ | 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.[7] | ” |
| —John Roberts | ||
Use in congressional and state legislative redistricting
Details by state
| Independent redistricting commissions | ||
|---|---|---|
| State | Number of commissioners | Selection method |
| Alaska | 5 | Two commissioners are appointed by the governor. One commissioner is appointed by the state Senate majority leader. One commissioner is appointed by the state House majority leader. One member is appointed by the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court.[8] |
| Arizona | 5 | Four commissioners 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 citizens. 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.[9] |
| California | 14 | The commission comprises 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans and four belonging to neither party. A panel of state auditors selects the pool of nominees from which the commissioners are appointed. This pool comprises 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 20 belonging to neither party. The majority and minority leaders of both chambers of the state legislature may each remove two members from each of the aforementioned groups. The first eight commission members are selected at random from the remaining nominees. These first eight comprise three Democrats, three Republicans and two belonging to neither party. The first eight commissioners appoint the remaining six, which must include two Democrats, two Republicans and two belonging to neither party.[10] |
| Idaho | 6 | One member is appointed by the majority leader of the Idaho State Senate. One member is appointed by the minority leader of the Idaho State Senate. One member is appointed by the majority leader of the Idaho House of Representatives. One member is appointed by the minority leader of the Idaho House of Representatives. The chairs of the state's two largest political parties each appoint one member.[11] |
| Montana | 5 | The majority and minority leaders of each chamber of the state legislature select one member a piece. These four members then select a fifth to serve as the commission's chair. If the first four commissioners are unable to agree on an appointment, the Montana Supreme Court may select the fifth member.[12] |
| Washington | 5 | The majority and minority leaders of the Washington State Senate and Washington House of Representatives each appoint one registered voter to the commission. These four commissioners appoint a fifth, non-voting member to serve as the commission's chair.[13] |
Support and opposition
Support
Proponents of independent redistricting commissions contend that redistricting methods involving elected officials compromise the integrity of the electoral process by enabling politicians to draw boundaries to their benefit. The National Election Defense Coalition, arguing for the increased use of independent commissions, made this argument on its website:[14]
| “ | Political power in America should flow from the people. But politicians often abuse their power to draw district boundaries, gerrymandering them for partisan and personal advantage. Elected officials end up choosing their voters, instead of the other way around. The result is stagnant and unaccountable incumbency, and unfair allocation of seats in Congress and state legislatures.[7] | ” |
| —National Election Defense Coalition | ||
In December 2016, the Center for American Progress released a report supportive of independent redistricting commissions:[15]
| “ | Independent commissions offer several benefits, including eliminating the appearance of impropriety and making elections fairer. Legislators, for instance, are four times more likely than independent commissions to create congressional districts that 'deny voters choice in the primary' and two times more likely to do so for general elections. This is perhaps one of the reasons why maps drawn by independent commissions face fewer legal challenges than maps drawn by politicians.[7] | ” |
| —Center for American Progress | ||
Opposition
Opponents argue that independent commissions exclude state legislators from the redistricting process in violation of the United States Constitution. The National Conference of State Legislatures, in an amicus brief filed in support of the Arizona State Legislature in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, made the following argument:[16]
| “ | In 37 states, the legislature draws the congressional redistricting plan. The other thirteen states involve both the legislature and some form of redistricting commission. All but two of these thirteen states respect the Election Clause's delegation by maintaining a substantive role for the legislature. But Arizona and one other state provide the legislature no substantive involvement in redistricting. ... Excluding the legislature from substantive involvement in redistricting contravenes the Elections Clause[.][7] | ” |
| —National Conference of State Legislatures | ||
Opponents also contend that independent commissions are less transparent in their methods and therefore less accountable to voters than elected officials. Susan Myrick, writing for the Civitas Institute in January 2017, made the following argument:
| “ | The fact is, redistricting is and always had been an inherently partisan process. The best way to deal with that fact is to ensure the process is transparently implemented by the elected officials charged with the responsibility. ... They are the ones who the voters can hold accountable at the ballot box – not namely, faceless bureaucrats.[7] | ” |
| —Sysan Myrick | ||
See also
External links
- Brennan Center for Justice, "Redistricting Reform Tracker (State Bills)"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ As of June 2017, Alaska and Montana were home to one congressional district each, thereby rendering congressional redistricting unnecessary.
- ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Alaska," accessed April 17, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Arizona," accessed April 17, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "California," accessed April 21, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Idaho," accessed April 20, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Montana," accessed April 29, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Washington," accessed May 6, 2015
- ↑ National Election Defense Coalition, "Independent Redistricting to End Partisan Gerrymandering," accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ Center for American Progress, "Redistricting and Representation: Drawing Fair Election Districts Instead of Manipulated Maps," December 5, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief of Amicus Curiae National Conference of State Legislatures in Support of Appellant," December 9, 2014
