By: David Gardy Ermann
On June 29th, 2015, the matter of Arizona voters’ rights to use an independent commission to draw congressional election districts to prevent the possibility of gerrymandering from state legislatures was affirmed in the SCOTUS opinion. The decision of Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a five-to-four split with Justice Ginsburg writing the majority opinion joined by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
The case stems from the adoption of Proposition 106 by voters in Arizona in 2000. Proposition 106 created the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) to be the independent commission that decides congressional and legislative election districts, rather than the Arizona State Legislature, in an attempt to prevent gerrymandering. The Arizona State Legislature, claiming that an independent commission violates the ‘Election Clause’ of the U.S. Constitution, filed suit. In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Ginsburg refers to the growth of direct democracy, but also the implementation of direct democracy in the Arizona Constitution, which recognized the voters and the representatives to be equal in terms of legislative power. The opinion noted that the Arizona State Legislature had a reasonable right to file the suit, but Proposition 106 and the independent commission created thereafter did not violate the ‘Elections Clause’ or any law. Thus, the opinion affirmed the ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. It then renders the possibility that if voters in other states follow, the decision could lead to more competitive races for seats in the House of Representatives.
On June 29th, 2015, the matter of Arizona voters’ rights to use an independent commission to draw congressional election districts to prevent the possibility of gerrymandering from state legislatures was affirmed in the SCOTUS opinion. The decision of Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a five-to-four split with Justice Ginsburg writing the majority opinion joined by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
The case stems from the adoption of Proposition 106 by voters in Arizona in 2000. Proposition 106 created the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) to be the independent commission that decides congressional and legislative election districts, rather than the Arizona State Legislature, in an attempt to prevent gerrymandering. The Arizona State Legislature, claiming that an independent commission violates the ‘Election Clause’ of the U.S. Constitution, filed suit. In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Ginsburg refers to the growth of direct democracy, but also the implementation of direct democracy in the Arizona Constitution, which recognized the voters and the representatives to be equal in terms of legislative power. The opinion noted that the Arizona State Legislature had a reasonable right to file the suit, but Proposition 106 and the independent commission created thereafter did not violate the ‘Elections Clause’ or any law. Thus, the opinion affirmed the ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. It then renders the possibility that if voters in other states follow, the decision could lead to more competitive races for seats in the House of Representatives.