WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday that a voter-approved independent redistricting commission in Arizona is constitutional.
In response to complaints that the state legislature was engaging in partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, Arizona voters approved an independent commission to draw district lines in a 2000 ballot initiative. The commission has two Republicans and two Democrats, who legislative leaders choose from a list composed by the state’s Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, in addition to a chairman who may not be a member of either party.
Republican legislators sued after the 2012 election, arguing that they shouldn’t be completely cut out of the district-drawing process.
The case before the Supreme Court — Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission — hinged on one word: “legislature.” It arose out of a debate over the Constitution’s elections clause, which dictates that the “times, places, and manner” of federal elections “shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
In oral arguments before the court in early March, the court’s four more conservative justices, plus Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the swing vote, seemed skeptical of the commission’s argument that “legislature” can also mean the legislative process, including ballot initiatives.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that “legislature” can refer to legislative power and the legislative process, as exercised by the people through direct democracy, since the Constitution’s framers at the time didn’t foresee how initiatives and referenda would become the law in states like Arizona.
As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in March’s oral arguments, state legislatures have previously been cut out of election administration issues with the advent of measures to instate voter identification and mail-in voting, as established by initiatives in in Mississippi and Oregon, respectively.
“There are zillions of these laws,” Kagan said. “So would all of those be unconstitutional as well?”
The legislature’s attorney, Paul Clement, said those election laws wouldn’t be at risk because they didn’t take power away from the legislature, as the creation of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission did.
Kennedy, who is often key to Supreme Court decisions, took a different tack, noting that U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures until 1913, when a constitutional amendment gave that power to the people.
“It seems to me that history works very much against you,” Kennedy told the commission’s attorney.
Those legislators had initiated no legal action against the Arizona commission until after the 2010 census, when the commission drew four safe seats for the GOP, two for Democrats and three toss-up districts — all of which went for Democrats in 2012. After that election, Republicans began attacking the commission’s members as unaccountable to the people since they are unelected.
The case the Supreme Court heard has potential implications beyond Arizona. If the justices ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the case is expected to overturn California’s commission, since that state had similarly removed its legislature from the vast majority of the district-drawing process. Eleven other states — Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Washington — also have commissions, though their lawmakers are more involved in the process.
Would-be challengers to the representatives of Arizona’s three competitive congressional districts — Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema and GOP Rep. Martha McSally — had held off on jumping into those races for 2016 until the Supreme Court issued its decision.
Screw the “supreme” court. They don’t matter anymore.
They only count the billionaires vote. If you think your vote counts in any way, you have been watching too many rainbows.