Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · 2015 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawElections ClauseStandingRedistrictingArticle I Elections ClauseArticle III standingredistrictinginitiative

Facts

In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106 by initiative to remove congressional redistricting authority from the Arizona Legislature and vest it in the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. After the 2010 census, the Commission adopted congressional district maps, while the Legislature's role was limited to making nonbinding recommendations and appropriating funds. The Arizona Legislature sued, arguing that the Elections Clause's reference to regulations being prescribed by each state's "Legislature" means only the representative lawmaking body and therefore bars redistricting by an independent commission created through initiative. Arizona's Constitution, however, treats the people as a coordinate lawmaking source, reserves initiative power to them, and bars the Legislature from superseding an initiative unless doing so furthers the initiative's purposes.

Issue

Whether the Arizona Legislature had Article III standing to challenge Proposition 106, and whether the Elections Clause and 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona to use an independent redistricting commission created by voter initiative to draw congressional districts. More specifically, the case asked whether "the Legislature" in the Elections Clause is limited to the representative assembly or includes the state's lawmaking processes defined by its constitution.

Rule

A state legislature has standing when a state constitutional measure allegedly strips it of redistricting authority and completely nullifies any vote it could cast on that subject. For purposes of the Elections Clause, redistricting is a lawmaking function to be performed in accordance with the state's constitutionally prescribed lawmaking processes; where state lawmaking authority includes the initiative, the people may establish an independent commission to draw congressional districts. Section 2a(c) likewise respects redistricting accomplished in the manner provided by state law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The constitution of New Mexico reserves to the people the power to enact statutes by initiative. Voters adopt an initiative creating the Sandia Redistricting Board, giving it exclusive authority to draw congressional districts and providing that any conflicting map passed by the New Mexico Legislature is void unless it furthers the initiative's purposes. Both chambers of the legislature authorize a federal suit challenging the arrangement under the Elections Clause before the legislature passes any competing map.

Does the legislature most likely have Article III standing?

Explanation. Yes. The majority held that an institutional legislature has standing when a state constitutional measure allegedly removes its redistricting authority and makes any legislative vote on that subject legally ineffective. The suit need not await passage of a competing map if the state constitution already makes such a map unavailing. This is an institutional injury authorized by both chambers, not merely a complaint by individual legislators.