Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 135 S. Ct. 2652

Background

In 2000 Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, removing congressional redistricting power from the state legislature and vesting it in an independent Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
After the 2010 census the AIRC adopted congressional maps for 2012; the Arizona State Legislature sued, claiming the Elections Clause (Art. I §4) vests redistricting authority exclusively in the State "Legislature."
The three‑judge District Court held the Legislature had standing but dismissed the claim on the merits, concluding that "Legislature" can encompass state lawmaking processes that include initiative/referendum.
The Supreme Court granted review on two questions: (1) Does the Arizona Legislature have Article III standing? (2) Do the Elections Clause and 2 U.S.C. §2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of an independent commission for congressional redistricting?
The Court (Ginsburg majority) affirmed: (a) the Arizona Legislature has standing because Proposition 106 and Arizona constitutional provisions would nullify any legislative redistricting vote, and (b) both §2a(c) and the Elections Clause allow a State to allocate redistricting authority via its lawmaking processes (including initiative and commissions).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing: can the Arizona Legislature sue to enjoin Prop 106?	The Legislature contended Prop 106 stripped it of its redistricting prerogative and any legislative vote would be nullified, producing concrete institutional injury.	AIRC argued injury was speculative unless the Legislature had enacted a competing plan or the Secretary of State refused to implement it.	Held: Legislature has standing — its institutional vote would be completely nullified by Prop 106 and state constitutional rules (Coleman/Raines framework).
Meaning of "Legislature" in the Elections Clause	"Legislature" means the representative legislative body alone; the Clause therefore precludes initiative‑created commissions.	"Legislature" means the State’s lawmaking authority as defined by state law and constitution, which can include the people acting by initiative and the commission they create.	Held: "Legislature" includes a State’s lawmaking process; the Elections Clause does not bar Arizona from using an initiative‑created independent commission.
Interaction with 2 U.S.C. §2a(c) (default federal redistricting rules)	§2a(c) is irrelevant or does not permit displacing the representative legislature; Congress could not authorize removal of the legislature.	§2a(c) and its 1911/1941 predecessors were intended to respect state lawmaking methods for redistricting, including initiative processes.	Held: §2a(c) permits redistricting pursuant to a State’s own law (including initiative/commission); the commission’s plan is the presumptive state map so long as state law provided the method.
Federalism / policy concerns about excluding representative bodies	Excluding legislatures from redistricting undermines constitutional text and structure; Seventeenth Amendment history shows "legislature" was understood as representative body.	Allowing initiatives/commissions respects state sovereignty, the people as source of power, and aims to curb partisan gerrymandering; precedent (Hildebrant/Smiley) recognizes non‑representative actors (referendum, governor veto) as part of state lawmaking.	Held: Permitting initiative‑created commissions accords with federalism, history, and purpose of the Elections Clause; barring them would unduly restrict States’ lawmaking choices and impair many election rules adopted by popular lawmaking.

Key Cases Cited

Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (legislators have standing when their votes are completely nullified)
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (legislators whose votes would have defeated or enacted specific legislation may have standing)
Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (1916) (referendum may be "part of the legislative power" for redistricting purposes)
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) (redistricting is lawmaking and must follow the State’s prescribed method, including the governor’s veto when applicable)
Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920) ("Legislature" in Article V means the representative body)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements: concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury)
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (standing principles)
Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003) (§2a(c) default rules and one‑person, one‑vote implications)
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) (partisan gerrymandering overview; justiciability discussion)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (injury must be fairly traceable and redressable)