In 2000, Arizona voters passed a ballot measure creating an Independent Redistricting Commission, which handles redistricting for U.S. House and state legislative districts. In 2012, the Arizona legislature filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that Article One of the U.S. Constitution requires that only state legislatures can draw U.S. House district maps. The case is Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 2:12cv-1211.
Article One, section 4, says, “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.” The Legislature argues this language means that (unless Congress intervenes), only state legislatures can draw U.S. House district maps. The Legislature says that the language doesn’t talk about state government in general, it says “legislature.”
On the other hand, the Independent Redistricting Commission argues that when the U.S. Constitution says “legislature”, it means any legislative process authorized by state law, and that for purposes of this part of the Constitution, the Independent Redistricting Commission is “the legislature.”
The case was originally being handled by U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt, a Reagan appointee. On August 14, 2013, Judge Rosenblatt determined that this case is suitable for a 3-judge court. On August 23, two more judges were appointed to the panel: Mary M. Schroeder, from the 9th circuit, a Carter appointee; and G. Murray Snow, a Bush Jr. appointee. On September 20, the legislature filed its brief; on October 18, the other side filed its brief.
One would think that after 224 years, the courts would have settled the meaning of the word “legislature” in Article One, but there are precedents suggesting support for each side, and the issue is not truly settled. The case has important implications for the redistricting process in many states, not just Arizona. It also has important implications for other areas of election law. For example, in Ohio in 2008, the Secretary of State promulgated regulations setting the petition for newly-qualifying parties at one-half of 1%, but a federal court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not permit anyone but the legislature to create such rules, so the Secretary of State’s regulation was not enforceable.
Who needs districts? Residency requirements were tossed out years ago with term limits. Just elect them at large so they really will represent the people as was originally intended.
Will SCOTUS uphold its Oregon voter petition stuff from 1898-1911 ???
Gee – are the minority rule gerrymander monarch/ oligarch robot party hacks in each legislative body the servants/ puppets of the REAL voters or not ???
i.e. ALL of the MORON reforms in the States are defective about ENDING minority rule gerrymanders — AZ, CA top 2, WA top 2, LA top 2, etc.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
The Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) makes some interesting claims.
(1) They claim that the IRC is a “legislative body”.
(2) They claim that the redistricting provisions in the state constitution do not prevent the legislature from redistricting, because the referendum provisions say that the legislature can refer “any” measure to the people. I suspect that if the legislature had drawn its own map, they wouldn’t be making that argument.
(3) They claim that Congress transferred authority over redistricting from the “legislature” to the “state’.
Since the ballot title claimed that the redistricting measure was taking the power to redistrict from the legislature, I’d be surprised if the court takes them seriously.
Both the legislature and IRC briefs cite ‘Davis v Hildebrandt’, ‘Smiley v Holm’, and the 11th Circuit decision in ‘Brown v Secretary of State’ (Florida redistricting).
The legislature says that the SCOTUS decisions only confirmed the auxiliary role of the popular and gubernatorial veto in the process of legislating, while the Florida provisions left the authority to redistricting with the legislature, and only controlled the process by which they pass redistricting legislation.
The IRC claims the 11th circuit decision confirmed that the state can arrange its legislative processes in any way they want to, including giving legislative authority to appointed bodies.
The legislature’s brief also mentions Justice Stevens’ dissent in ‘California Democrat Party v Jones’, where he suggested that because the blanket primary had been proposed by the referendum process, it might not be applicable to congressional elections.
The fundamental problem is that the US Constitution presumes that US representatives will be elected in a manner similar to legislatures, by making the electorates the same. It simply doesn’t make sense that “to vote” would mean dramatically different things depending on whether a person is voting for congress or the legislature.
On the other hand, the fundamental purpose of a state constitution is define how the organs of government, including the legislature, are constituted. Most constitutions at least specify the number of legislators, and that they be elected from districts. Many go into great detail how the legislative districts are drawn. And it is common sense to take legislative district drawing from those who have a paramount self-interest in how the lines are drawn.
It gets murky when the same regulations apply to both congressional and legislative elections, even if a general way. Can the Mississippi Secretary of State set regular hours if the legislature doesn’t specify it in detail for one event every 4 years? Conceivably Ohio could have different party qualifications for federal and other elections, and if so, conceivably the SOS might have authority to set numbers for state elections. May Arizona have different registration procedures for federal and state elections?
The real objective of the Love litigants in ‘Foster v Love’ was to get rid of the open primary. They failed when it was decided on the basis of time regulation, and the district court simply changed the election calendar. If Louisiana didn’t have odd-year state elections, they might have succeeded.
If someone challenges the California Top 2 Open primary (as applied to congressional elections) on the basis that it was passed by the initiative, it will be with the intent of making operation of the primaries impracticable or “confusing” for the voters.
I’m greatly in favor of independent redistricting, but it seems to me that there’s a very strong argument against it in this case. The IRC was established by a citizen initiative that took the power to redistrict away from the legislature. But if the US Constitution gives the power to the state legislature, then even the voters can’t take it away from them. If the legislature had established the IRC by statute — or even if they had put the state constitutional amendment on the ballot themselves — then that might be a different matter.