Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court upholds Arizona's independent Redistricting Commission
5-4 vote; opinion by Ginsburg
Roberts dissents; joined by Thomas Alito, Scalia
Scalia dissents; joined by Thomas
Thomas dissents; joined by Scalia
Under Arizonas Constitution, the electorate shares lawmaking authority on equal footing with the Arizona Legislature. The voters may adopt laws and constitutional amendments by ballot initiative, and they may approve or disapprove, by referendum, measures passed by the Legislature. Ariz. Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, §1. Any law which may be enacted by the Legislature . . . may be enacted by the people under the Initiative. Art. XXII, §14.
In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, an initiative aimed at the problem of gerrymandering. Proposition 106 amended Arizonas Constitution, removing redistricting authority from the Arizona Legislature and vesting it in an independent commission, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). After the 2010 census, as after the 2000 census, the AIRC adopted redistricting maps for congressional as well as state legislative districts. The Arizona Legislature challenged the map the Commission adopted in 2012 for congressional districts, arguing that the AIRC and its map violated the Elections Clause of the U. S. Constitution, which provides:
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.
Because Legislature means the States representative assembly, the Arizona Legislature contended, the Clause precludes resort to an independent commission, created by initiative, to accomplish redistricting. A three-judge District Court held that the Arizona Legislature had standing to sue, but rejected its complaint on the merits.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf
In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, an initiative aimed at the problem of gerrymandering. Proposition 106 amended Arizonas Constitution, removing redistricting authority from the Arizona Legislature and vesting it in an independent commission, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). After the 2010 census, as after the 2000 census, the AIRC adopted redistricting maps for congressional as well as state legislative districts. The Arizona Legislature challenged the map the Commission adopted in 2012 for congressional districts, arguing that the AIRC and its map violated the Elections Clause of the U. S. Constitution, which provides:
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.
Because Legislature means the States representative assembly, the Arizona Legislature contended, the Clause precludes resort to an independent commission, created by initiative, to accomplish redistricting. A three-judge District Court held that the Arizona Legislature had standing to sue, but rejected its complaint on the merits.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf
Held:
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
10 replies, 865 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (17)
ReplyReply to this post
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court upholds Arizona's independent Redistricting Commission (Original Post)
brooklynite
Jun 2015
OP
RandySF
(59,206 posts)1. WHEW!!!!!
This is a huge relief.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)2. Wonderful news!
Hoping more and more states do this.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)3. The usual suspects are dissenting then.
Colour me hardly suprised.
Lochloosa
(16,068 posts)4. This is a bid deal.
Kber
(5,043 posts)5. this is hugh!!
Kber
(5,043 posts)6. Outstanding.
What did we put in Kennedy's coffee and where can we get more?
riversedge
(70,299 posts)7. some information... yes good decision IMHO...
Live blog of orders and opinions | June 29, 2015 Live
< Newest123Oldest >
Share
Make a comment
Share
Options
Live Updating
http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__June_29_2015
9:29 AM
The Court has several times refused to address the question whether partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution. This decision gives the states an opportunity to deal with partisan gerrymandering by giving an independent commission power to draw federal congressional districts.
by Amy Howe 9:28 AM
Comment ? 11
Thomas dissents, joined by Scalia.
by Amy Howe 9:28 AM
Comment ? 0
Scalia dissents, joined by Thomas.
by Amy Howe 9:28 AM
Comment ? 0
Chief dissents, joined by Scalia/Thomas/Alito.
by Amy Howe 9:27 AM
Comment ? 0
Kennedy joins majority.
by Amy Howe 9:27 AM
Comment ? 1
Background on the AZ decision: The Constitutions Elections Clause provides that the Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for . . . Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof. In 2000, Arizona voters amended the states constitution to give control over redistricting of federal congressional districts to an independent commission. This case is a challenge by the state legislature to that transfer, on the ground that it violated the Elections Clause.
by Kevin Russell 9:27 AM
Comment ? 1
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__June_29_2015#sthash.xXcimqOs.dpuf
riversedge
(70,299 posts)9. more information
From the final paragraph of the majority opinion: "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."
by Kevin Russell 9:34 AM
Comment ? 0
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__June_29_2015#sthash.xXcimqOs.dpuf
RandySF
(59,206 posts)8. California would have been f-ed up.
We have the same procedure.
Cha
(297,629 posts)10. Good!