On the final day for SCOTUS rulings, the court by a 5-4 margin upheld the constitutionality of voter enacted redistricting commissions. The Republican legislature in Arizona did not like the nonpartisan redistricting commission which wasn’t gerrymandering the districts to their liking.
I’m a bit curious as to how this will shake out. The SoW has had a semi-bipartisan commission (four members appointed by the majority and minority leaders of each legislative chamber, plus a non-voting chair) since the 1991 redistricting, and so far the net effect seems to have been solidifying the status quo — in other words, keeping each party’s safe seats safe.
I don’t think the case means all that much outside the narrow issue presented. Arizona’s constitution includes a provision that I think is unique and which largely decides the issue:
In other words, in Arizona the people are the legislature.
Sounds to me like the majority of the court decided to overlook the Constitution, which refers to “people” in some instances and “legislature” in others and doesn’t seem confused about differences between the two.
I am conflicted about how much to be upset about this, since it’s a clear victory for voters tired of having their districts gerrymandered by sleazy power-seeking lawmakers.
It’s interesting to consider what the limiting principle on the decision might be. The Constitution commits various law-making powers to Congress, for instance, but this decision suggests that a federal referendum could take the place of that authority.
I don’t know if this language applies here, but doesn’t “in such manner as the legislature may direct” imply a power to delegate? The manner the legislature directed is that someone else should do it.
Nah, it simply puts the gerrymandering power in different hands. Non-partisan commissions are still appointed by someone, and what are the odds that the appointing power is non-partisan and divorced from ideological advantage?
In this case, the legislature didn’t direct that someone else should do it; the redistricting commission was created by popular initiative, over the objections of the legislature.
The limit is that because the provision is in the Arizona constitution, it only applies to powers available to the Arizona legislature. As long as there isn’t a similar provision in the federal constitution, there is no danger of a federal referendum doing the same (unless the federal government passed legislation agreeing that the result was binding).
This is a bit tangential, but can someone explain this from my link in the OP.
The Republicans have 5% more voters registered than the Democrats, yet they are “infuriated” that they “only” have twice as many safe congressional seats as the Democrats?
The problem with this is the Federal constitution proscribes how the voting is done, not the Arizona constitution. The law was perfectly legal in Arizona, but clearly unconstitutional.
I think all districts everywhere should be drawn by non-partisan means but this is bigger than just one case. It points to a flaw in the design of our government.
One of the great steps forward in civilization was Hammurabi’s code which is the first known set of laws that was written down. This allowed people to know what the laws were and know when they were breaking them. The rule of law has been one of the great accomplishments since before this an act could be legal on Tuesday and illegal on Wednesday based merely upon the changing moods of the ruler.
However, the Supreme Court has turned this legacy of the rule of law on its head. The constitution is supposed to be the law of the land, but now instead of the document being the law, the whatever the Justices think is the law of the land. If the legislature suddenly means the people or the legislature, then why have a written constitution at all. Why not just be like Iran and have a guardian council that approves or disapproves laws solely on the basis of whether the council likes the laws? At least it would be more honest then the charade the court now engages in.
Yes. It’s so patently unconstitutional that it was upheld by a Reagan-appointed district judge and by SCOTUS.
The federal constitution does not define what a state legislature is. Arizona defines its legislature as both the representative body and the electorate.
Of course, we both know you don’t actually care about the constitutionality of the law. If the Arizona legislature was controlled by Democrats and a purple electorate had passed this initiative you’d be commending SCOTUS for upholding the will of the voters against the tyrannical state government that had lost touch with those it is supposed to serve.
True, nothing would prevent any individual state from organizing as an Athenian republic, with the legislative assembly being that of all the enfranchised citizens who show up.
And having worked with state legislators, Og knows they have a major chip on their shoulder about how dare any *appointed *official or body have power they don’t, or even be able to override them. I would not be surprised if the Arizona legislature would have opposed it had they been majority Democrat anyway.
Well, that’s not quite true. The Constitution guarantees state citizens a “republican form of government,” and SCOTUS has held that Congress and the POTUS are charged with enforcing and interpreting that clause. So Congress could prevent a state from organizing as an Athenian republic if it really wanted to.
Judges and Justices do patently unconstitutional things all the time, regardless of who appointed them. Even Reagan made mistakes.
The dictionary defines the legislature as a law making body. Voting in a referendum does not make one part of the legislature.
I think all districts should be drawn by non partisan panels and would be in favor of an amendment to the constitution to allow referendums to decide the matter. But just because I like the outcome does not mean I want the court to act like philosopher kings instead of judges.
I like the idea of non partisan redistricting panels alot, it is just that I like the idea of the rule of law better.
Many voting system tend to throw harder towards the larger party: the Democrats have only a few more voters than the Republicans, but right now they have a million times more American Presidents than the Republicans do…
Having more safer seats normally reduces your chance of forming a majority: to get a majority, you want your voters spread out so that all the seats are just in your favour. I would imagine that the Republicans are infuriated that their safe seats are too safe: they’d like to be 35-35-30 in all seats.
Imagine how the interpretation of Article V of the US Constitution might be quite different under the rationale of the SCOTUS ruling in the Arizona Redistricting Commission case. If the Legislature is equivalent to a referendum of the people then all hell may break loose. See the tyranny of the majority prevail.
So could ballot initiative in two thirds of the States force a nationwide poll on whether to amend the Constitution with an Amendment passing when three fourths of the states get a majority in a ratification poll?
Given relatively low election turn-out rates I could see the hot-button issue of the day ending up in the Constitution far too easily.
