576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015)
In 2000 Arizona voters approved Proposition 106, an initiative that amended the state constitution to remove congressional redistricting authority from the Arizona Legislature and vest it in a new Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.1
The measure responded to recurring redistricting controversies that had produced rejected plans or denied preclearance in every cycle since the 1970s.2 After the 2010 census the Commission adopted final congressional district maps in January 2012.3
The Arizona Legislature filed suit on June 6, 2012, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the Commission, its five members, and the Secretary of State.4 The complaint sought a declaration that the Commission and its maps violated the Elections Clause and an injunction barring use of the maps after the 2012 election.5
A three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2284(a), unanimously denied a motion by the AIRC to dismiss the suit for lack of standing.6 On the merits, dividing two to one, the District Court granted the AIRC’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.7 The Supreme Court postponed jurisdiction and instructed the parties to address two questions: (1) Does the Arizona Legislature have standing to bring this suit? (2) Do the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. §2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts?8 The District Court’s judgment was affirmed.
Arizona’s Constitution establishes the electorate as a coordinate source of legislation on equal footing with the representative legislative body.9 The initiative, housed under the article of the Arizona Constitution concerning the Legislative Department and the section defining the State’s legislative authority, reserves for the people the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution.10
Whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit challenging Proposition 106?
To establish Article III standing a plaintiff must show an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, fairly traceable to the challenged action, and redressable by a favorable ruling.11 Institutional plaintiffs such as a state legislature have standing when a constitutional provision completely nullifies any vote they might cast on a specific matter, as recognized in Coleman v. Miller and distinguished from the dispersed injury in Raines v. Byrd.12
Yes. In 2000 Arizona voters approved Proposition 106, an initiative that amended the state constitution to remove congressional redistricting authority from the Arizona Legislature and vest it in a new Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The measure responded to recurring redistricting controversies that had produced rejected plans or denied preclearance in every cycle since the 1970s. After the 2010 census the Commission adopted final congressional district maps in January 2012.
The Arizona Legislature filed suit on June 6, 2012, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the Commission, its five members, and the Secretary of State. The complaint sought a declaration that the Commission and its maps violated the Elections Clause and an injunction barring use of the maps after the 2012 election. A three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2284(a), unanimously denied a motion by the AIRC to dismiss the suit for lack of standing. On the merits, dividing two to one, the District Court granted the AIRC’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Arizona’s Constitution establishes the electorate as a coordinate source of legislation on equal footing with the representative legislative body. The initiative, housed under the article of the Arizona Constitution concerning the Legislative Department and the section defining the State’s legislative authority, reserves for the people the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution. The Arizona Legislature has shown injury that is concrete and particularized because Proposition 106, together with the Arizona Constitution’s ban on efforts by the Arizona Legislature to undermine the purposes of an initiative, would completely nullify any vote by the Legislature purporting to adopt a redistricting plan.13 The injury is fairly traceable to the adoption of Proposition 106 and redressable by an injunction against its enforcement.14 The Legislature authorized the suit by votes in both chambers, distinguishing it from Raines v. Byrd where individual members lacked standing.15
The Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit challenging Proposition 106.16
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Thomas
Justice Scalia dissented on standing grounds, asserting that disputes between governmental branches over power allocation do not constitute Article III cases or controversies.17 He emphasized that federal courts traditionally resolve disputes involving individual rights, not intragovernmental power struggles, and that Coleman v. Miller is an anomalous and shaky precedent that should be charitably ignored.18 Allowing such suits would improperly involve courts in political disputes between state entities.19
Scalia argued that the law of Article III standing is built on separation of powers and keeps courts minding their own business rather than adjudicating direct clashes between state legislative and executive branches or commissions.20
Joined by Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas joined Scalia's dissent on standing and argued that the majority's approach reveals an inconsistent attitude toward ballot initiatives and state sovereignty.21 He noted that the Court has repeatedly refused to review cases setting aside state laws passed through ballot initiative in other contexts, yet here it elevates one such initiative while ignoring the plain text of the Elections Clause.22 Thomas contended that treating intragovernmental disputes as justiciable would encourage judicial meddling with the branches of state governments.23
Whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U.S.C. §2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts?24
The Elections Clause provides that the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.25 Redistricting is a legislative function to be performed in accordance with the State's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the initiative process.26 The term Legislature encompasses the lawmaking power as defined by the state constitution, including direct democracy mechanisms like initiatives, because the Clause was intended to empower Congress to override state election rules rather than to restrict the way States enact legislation.27
Yes. The Elections Clause and 2 U.S.C. §2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission because redistricting authority was vested in the AIRC by initiative, which is part of the legislative process under Arizona’s Constitution.28 The history of the Clause shows it was to empower Congress to override state rules, not restrict state lawmaking processes.29 Arizona voters placed the initiative power and the AIRC’s authority in the legislative article of the state constitution, consistent with the principle that the people are the source of governmental power.30
Section 2a(c) permits redistricting in the manner provided by state law, which includes the commission procedure.31 The dominant purpose of the Elections Clause was to empower Congress to override state election rules, not to restrict the way States enact legislation. There is no constitutional barrier to a State's empowerment of its people by embracing the initiative form of lawmaking.32 The Framers may not have imagined the modern initiative process, but the invention of the initiative was in full harmony with the Constitution's conception of the people as the font of governmental power.33
The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U.S.C. §2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts.34
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, And Justice Alito
Chief Justice Roberts dissented, arguing that the Elections Clause vests authority in the representative legislature, not the people or a commission. He relied on the plain meaning of Legislature as the representative body, supported by other constitutional provisions distinguishing it from the people, the history of the Seventeenth Amendment, and precedents like Hawke and Smiley.35 Roberts contended that allowing the initiative to displace the legislature would render the term meaningless and contradict the Framers' intent.
He emphasized that the Court's position has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution and that no matter how concerned one may be about partisanship in redistricting, the Court has no power to gerrymander the Constitution.