Arizona State Legislature V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Et Al
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against Arizona legislators in the challenge to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Committee. Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the Court.
Ginsburg was joined by Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. Scalia also filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas joined, and Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia joined.
Although the Court has refused in the past to address the question of whether partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution, this decision now gives the states an opportunity to deal with partisan gerrymandering by giving an independent commission power to draw federal congressional districts.
Ginsburg wrote: “The importance of direct democracy as a means to control election regulations extends beyond the particular statutes and constitutional provisions installed by the people rather than the States’ legislatures. The very prospect of lawmaking by the people may influence the legislature when it considers (or fails to consider) election related measures…. (describing cases in which “indirect pressure of the initiative process . . . was sufficient to spur [state] legislature[s] to action”). Turning the coin, the legislature’s responsiveness to the people its members represent is hardly heightened when the representative body can be confident that what it does will not be overturned or modified by the voters themselves.
Invoking the Elections Clause, the Arizona Legislature instituted this lawsuit to disempower the State’s voters from serving as the legislative power for redistricting purposes.”
Ginsburg concluded: 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.” The Federalist No. 57, at 350 (J. Madison). 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.” Berman, Managing Gerrymandering, 83 Texas L. Rev. 781 (2005). The Elections Clause does not hinder that endeavor.”
However, it was the gerrymandering by the Independent Redistricting Committee (IRC) that forced the lawmakers to bring the case. The Chair of the Committee claimed, at the time she applied for a position on the Committee, that she was an Independent. Contrary to her claims of independence, evidence showed that she colluded with democrats to craft districts.
Arizona State Representative Bob Thorpe stated, “This is the third disappointing SCOTUS ruling in a week, where the court has trampled state sovereignty and historic state’s rights. Arizona’s referendum system has created some good laws, and some poorly written laws that lack basic oversight, accountability and review. Arizona’s “Independent” Redistricting Commission has proven itself to be politically non-independent, statewide gerrymandering by 5 unelected, unaccountable appointees. The voters have no recourse when this tiny group makes biased decisions based upon their personal partisan politics.”
Justice Roberts acknowledged the lack of independence in his dissent. He wrote, “The majority largely ignores this evidence, relying instead on disconnected observations about direct democracy, a contorted interpretation of an irrelevant statute, and naked appeals to public policy. Nowhere does the majority explain how a constitutional provision that vests redistricting authority in “the Legislature” permits a State to wholly exclude “the Legislature” from redistricting. Arizona’s Commission might be a noble endeavor— although it does not seem so “independent” in practice— but the “fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful . . . will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 944 (1983). No matter how concerned we may be about partisanship in redistricting, this Court has no power to gerrymander the Constitution.”
Arizona State Rep. Kelly Townsend stated, “Now that the Supreme Court has given us their ruling, we need to take an honest look at how much power we have given to one person to decide the direction of our maps. With two D’s and two R’s, the Independent decides the outcome of the issue. Assuming they are truly non-partisan in their judgement, we might end up with a fair and balanced outcome. As we experienced in 2011 with Colleen Mathis and her omission of disqualifying information on her application, we ended up with a so-called mapping company, Strategic Telemetry, whose leader was a progressive Democrat with a published goal of getting as many far Left Liberals elected to Congress as possible. The fact that they had to hire a second mapping consultant to train the so-called current mapping consultants is revealing. One person, siding with the Democrats on virtually every issue, allowed Strategic Telemetry to have access to our entire State’s voting database, and there was nothing we could do to stop it. We must now focus on how to prevent this type of foul play going forward.”
Arizona State Rep. Victoria Steele, who hopes to challenge Congresswoman Martha McSally, hopes to take advantage of the ruling: “The decision could have dramatically and fundamentally changed the electoral landscape in Arizona. I am encouraged to learn of this ruling in favor of the power of the people in Arizona. We can now get on with the important business of electing our next Congressional delegation.”
In his dissent, Justice Scalia wrote: “I do not believe that the question the Court answers is properly before us. Disputes between governmental branches or departments regarding the allocation of political power do not in my view constitute “cases” or “controversies” committed to our resolution by Art. III, §2, of the Constitution.
What those who framed and ratified the Constitution had in mind when they entrusted the “judicial Power” to a separate and coequal branch of the Federal Government was the judicial power they were familiar with—that traditionally exercised by English and American courts. The “cases” and “controversies” that those courts entertained did not include suits between units of government regarding their legitimate powers. The job of the courts was, in Chief Justice Marshall’s words, “solely, to decide on the rights of individuals,” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170 (1803).”
In his dissent, Roberts wrote: “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. And the Constitution gives them another means of change. They can follow the lead of the reformers who won passage of the Seventeenth Amendment. Indeed, several constitutional amendments over the past century have involved modifications of the electoral process. Amdts. 19, 22, 24, 26. Unfortunately, today’s decision will only discourage this democratic method of change. Why go through the hassle of writing a new provision into the Constitution when it is so much easier to write an old one out?”
Arizona State Rep. Warren Petersen stated, “What we are witnessing with the recent string of constitutionally contemptuous decisions is the result of years of activist appointments. I have never been more concerned for this country. Without an increase in justices that abide by the textual meaning of our laws, our Constitution will lose its effect and meaning. One has to question how long it can withstand the arbitrary and capricious whims of the current court.”
House Speaker David Gowan and Senate President Andy Biggs issued a joint statement: “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided to depart from the clear language of the Constitution. The Framers selected the elected representatives of the people to conduct congressional redistricting. It’s unfortunate that the clear constitutional design has been demolished in Arizona by five lawyers at the high court.”
Read Arizona State Legislature V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Et Al here.
Related Articles:
Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission case
U.S. Supreme Court to consider Arizona redistricting
Republicans redistricting concerns validated
IRC redistricting efforts minimized by voters
Court finds partisanship, IRC legislative lines remain
Supreme Court sets March hearing date for IRC
Court asked to waive preclearance in IRC maps
IRC requests more money for lawsuits
IRC hearing, partisan advantage “real“