海角大神

In a major victory for those seeking to reduce the role of partisan politics in drawing election districts, the United States Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Arizona鈥檚 Independent Redistricting Commission does not violate the Constitution鈥檚 "elections clause."

The 5-to-4 ruling gives a green light to states that may be interested in experimenting with a different way to draw state and federal election districts by turning that power over to a nonpartisan body.

Similar independent redistricting commissions are already operating in six other states. Those states are California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, and Washington.

An additional seven states use redistricting commissions in an advisory role to assist lawmakers in drawing election maps.

The central issue in the case was whether Arizona鈥檚 Independent Redistricting Commission violated a constitutional requirement that voting rules and procedures for federal elections be set by the state legislature.

Since Arizona鈥檚 redistricting commission is completely independent of the legislature, challengers said, it violates the terms of the Constitution鈥檚 elections clause.

That clause reads in part: 鈥淭he times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.鈥�

The majority justices 鈥� the court鈥檚 liberal wing plus swing justice Anthony Kennedy 鈥� embraced a broad reading of the word 鈥渓egislature.鈥�

Rather than limiting that term to a body of elected lawmakers, the majority justices said 鈥渓egislature鈥� could also include an action undertaken by the people through the referendum process.

鈥淥ur precedent teaches that redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state鈥檚 prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor鈥檚 veto,鈥� Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion.

鈥淲e see no constitutional barrier to a state鈥檚 empowerment of its people by embracing that form of lawmaking,鈥� she said.

In a dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said the court was rewriting the text of the Constitution by editing out four key words.

鈥淭he effect of the majority鈥檚 decision is to erase the words 鈥榖y the legislature thereof鈥� from the Elections Clause,鈥� the chief justice said. 鈥淭hat is a judicial error of the most basic order.鈥�

He added: 鈥淭he majority today shows greater concern about redistricting practices than about the meaning of the Constitution.鈥�

The Arizona case was being closely watched by election reform advocates because Arizona鈥檚 independent redistricting commission was viewed as an innovative way to undercut the influence of partisan gerrymandering in the drafting of new election districts.

In most states, the party that controls the state legislature seeks to maximize its success at the polls by drawing district lines that favor its candidates and disadvantage the opposing party.

Voters in Arizona decided to try a different way to draw voting districts. A 2000 ballot initiative amended the state constitution by assigning the authority to redraw state and congressional districts to a five-member commission.

The commission is composed of two Democratic appointees, two Republican appointees, and an independent member.

In 2012, members of the Republican-controlled Arizona state legislature became dissatisfied with the commission and filed suit charging that the independent body was unconstitutional. The suit claimed that the commission was usurping authority that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the state legislature.

In her majority opinion, Justice Ginsburg said the Arizona Legislature鈥檚 lawsuit was aimed at disempowering the state鈥檚 voters from directly asserting their own legislative authority over redistricting.

鈥淭he people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that members of Congress would have 鈥榓n habitual recollection of their dependence on the people,鈥� 鈥� she said, .

鈥淎rizona voters sought to restore the core principle of republican government, namely, that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around,鈥� she said.

鈥淭he Elections Clause does not hinder that endeavor,鈥� Ginsburg added.

The dissenting justices disagreed. 鈥淭he constitutional text, structure, history, and precedent establish a straightforward rule: Under the Elections Clause, 鈥榯he legislature鈥� is a representative body that, when it prescribes election regulations, may be required to do so within the ordinary lawmaking process, but may not be cut out of that process,鈥� Roberts wrote.

鈥淧ut simply, the state legislature need not be exclusive in congressional redistricting, but neither may it be excluded,鈥� he said.

The chief justice said Arizona residents concerned about redistricting may ask Congress for help in changing election regulations, or they could seek to amend the Constitution to change the election process.

鈥淯nfortunately, today鈥檚 decision will only discourage this democratic method of change,鈥� Roberts said. 鈥淲hy go through the hassle of writing a new provision into the Constitution when it is so much easier to write an old one out?鈥�

In a separate dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas noted an irony in the majority鈥檚 decision in the Arizona case holding itself up as 鈥渁 great defender of direct democracy in the states鈥� only days after the court invalidated state constitutional amendments passed by voters in an array of states in its same-sex marriage decision.

鈥淛ust last week, in the antithesis of deference to state lawmaking through direct democracy, the court cast aside state laws across the country 鈥� many of which were enacted through ballot initiative 鈥� that reflected the traditional definition of marriage,鈥� Justice Thomas said.

Throughout the term, he said, the court refused to review cases in which an appeals court had set aside state laws passed by ballot initiative. 鈥淚n each decision, the cheers for direct democracy were conspicuously absent,鈥� Thomas said.

鈥淭he ballot initiative in this case, unlike those the court has previously treated so dismissively, was unusually democracy-reducing,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t did not ask the people to approve a particular redistricting plan through direct democracy, but instead to take districting away from the people鈥檚 representatives and give it to an unelected committee.鈥�

Thomas added: 鈥淚 would dispense with the faux federalism and would instead treat the states in an evenhanded manner. That means applying the Constitution as written.鈥�

Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia both said the case should have been dismissed because, in their view, the Arizona legislature lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the lawsuit.

In addition to Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito also dissented in the case.

Joining Ginsburg鈥檚 majority opinion were Justices Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Election reform advocates hailed the decision as an important opening for further progress against political gerrymandering.

鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is a big win for voters because it validates the power of citizens to use the ballot box to combat dysfunction,鈥� Michael Li, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, said in a statement.

鈥淏y leaving in place important redistricting reforms in Arizona and California, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that voters have the freedom under the Constitution to experiment with ways to make their democracy work better,鈥� he said.

鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling will help Arizona put an end to political gerrymandering,鈥� Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society, said in a statement.

鈥淯nfortunately, these attacks on fair elections are a nationwide epidemic,鈥� she said. 鈥淓lections are neither fair nor just when their outcomes are predetermined by legislatures.鈥�

The case was Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (13-1314).