What the Supreme Court’s Arizona Redistricting Ruling Means for Presidential (Not Just Congressional) Election Reform
via Justia.com
Last week’s ruling by the Supreme Court in Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) was one of the most important, but perhaps below-the-radar, decisions of the Term. The case raised the question whether the U.S. Constitution and congressional statutes permit the people of a state to implement an initiative creating an independent redistricting commission —i.e., one that is not controllable by the elected state legislature—to devise congressional districts. Arizona voters passed just such an initiative in 2000 (Proposition 106), and the elected Arizona legislature (acting as a body) challenged the initiative, bringing the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The elected legislature argued primarily that the so-called Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution (Article I, section 4) prevents a state from divesting district-drawing power from the elected state legislature. In the space below, I offer three key points that can be drawn from the case.
#1: It Is Now Clear That “(State) Legislature” in the Constitution Doesn’t Always Mean Elected Legislature, and Doesn’t Mean Elected Legislature When It Refers to the Power to Pass State Laws
The Elections Clause of the Constitution, Article I, section 4—the provision on which the elected Arizona legislature relied—reads: “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 . . . .”
Back