Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n
The Supreme Court ruled that Arizona voters could strip the state legislature of its power to draw congressional districts and hand that job to an independent redistricting commission created by a ballot initiative.
The decision upholds a tool several states use to fight partisan gerrymandering, confirming that when a state constitution lets voters make laws directly, that lawmaking counts as the 'Legislature' for purposes of federal election rules.
“it would be perverse to interpret the term “Legislature” in the Elections Clause so as to exclude lawmaking by the people, particularly where such lawmaking is intended to check legislators’ ability to choose the district lines they run in”
The Court's core reasoning for why voter-created redistricting commissions satisfy the Elections Clause.
How it got here: A three-judge federal district court found the Legislature had standing but ruled against it on the merits, and the Legislature appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Arizona voters passed Proposition 106 in 2000, amending the state constitution to move congressional redistricting from the state legislature to a newly created Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, aimed at curbing gerrymandering. After the commission adopted a congressional map following the 2010 census, the Arizona Legislature sued, arguing the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause gives redistricting power only to the elected legislature, not to a commission created by the people.
The question before the Court
Could Arizona voters take congressional redistricting away from the state legislature and give it to an independent commission created by ballot initiative?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that Arizona's voters could lawfully move congressional redistricting from the state legislature to an independent commission created by ballot initiative. Because Arizona's constitution treats the initiative process as part of the state's lawmaking power, and places the commission's authority within that same lawmaking structure, the commission's maps count as the product of 'the Legislature' for Elections Clause purposes.
The Court also found that a related federal statute, which defers to however a state has been 'redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof,' already accounts for states where the people make election laws directly. So both the Constitution and federal statute permitted Arizona's arrangement, and the commission's map stands.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
States that let voters pass laws by ballot initiative can use that power to set up independent commissions for congressional redistricting, insulating map-drawing from the self-interest of sitting legislators. The ruling protects similar reform efforts nationwide and signals that federal courts will treat citizen lawmaking as equivalent to legislative action for election-law purposes.
What changes now
The ruling is final on the merits and leaves Arizona's independent redistricting commission in place for future congressional map-drawing. Other states with similar citizen-initiative-created redistricting commissions can continue to rely on them without facing the same Elections Clause challenge. The decision does not disturb ordinary legislature-drawn maps in other states, and future disputes over commission design or partisan bias in redistricting will be litigated separately.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the Arizona commission's specific maps were drawn fairly or free of partisan bias — that dispute was pending separately. It also did not hold that state legislatures can be excluded from every role in the Elections Clause context; the ruling turns on Arizona's specific constitutional structure making the initiative process part of its 'Legislature.'
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Roberts
“The Court today performs just such a magic trick with the Elections Clause.”Roberts's objection that the majority redefined 'Legislature' to mean 'the people.'
Chief Justice Roberts argued that 'the Legislature' in the Elections Clause has always meant the elected representative body, not the people as a whole, pointing to the Constitution's seventeen other uses of 'Legislature' and the decades-long campaign needed to pass the Seventeenth Amendment. He would have held that Arizona's commission unconstitutionally excludes the legislature entirely from congressional redistricting, though he said the legislature need not have exclusive control.
Dissent — Justice Scalia
Justice Scalia argued the Court had no business deciding the case at all, contending that disputes between government bodies over their own powers are not genuine 'cases or controversies' under Article III. He viewed the Arizona Legislature's suit as an intragovernmental power dispute the judiciary should stay out of, and separately called the majority's merits ruling 'outrageously wrong.'
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas accused the majority of inconsistently praising ballot initiatives here while disregarding them in other cases involving marriage and other issues. He agreed with Justice Scalia that the Legislature lacked standing to sue and argued the plain text of the Elections Clause bars redistricting by an unelected commission.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first asked whether the Arizona Legislature had standing to sue at all, applying the ordinary rule that a plaintiff must show a concrete, particular injury that a favorable ruling would fix. Because Arizona's constitution bars the Legislature from ever overriding the commission's map, the Court found the Legislature's loss of any role in redistricting was a real, ongoing injury.
- Turning to the merits, the Court reviewed its own past rulings on what 'the Legislature' means in the Elections Clause, concluding that redistricting is a lawmaking function carried out however a state's own constitution provides for making laws — including through a governor's veto or a voter referendum, not just a vote of the elected assembly.
- The Court then read a federal statute, 2 U.S.C. §2a(c), which since 1911 has deferred to however a state is 'redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof.' It found Congress had already recognized that some states let the people make election laws directly, so a commission created by the people satisfies that statutory language.
- Applying that same logic to the Elections Clause itself, the Court held that because Arizona's constitution places both the initiative power and the commission's authority within the state's legislative article, the commission's maps are the product of 'the Legislature' in the sense the Clause requires.
- The Court concluded that reading 'Legislature' to exclude lawmaking by the people would be inconsistent with the constitutional idea that all political power flows from the people, and would also cast doubt on many other election rules states have adopted by ballot initiative.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Raines v. Byrd (521 U. S. 811)
The Court said individual lawmakers' lack of standing there differs from an institutional legislature's standing here.
Reaffirms Coleman v. Miller (307 U. S. 433)
The Court relied on this case to support finding the Arizona Legislature had standing to sue.