Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
997 F. Supp. 2d 1047
D. Ariz.2014Background
- In 2000 Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, amending the state constitution to create an Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) and transfer authority to draw congressional districts from the state Legislature to the IRC.
- The IRC’s membership and procedures are set by the amendment: legislative leaders select four commissioners from a nominated list; those four select a chair; the governor may remove commissioners with senate concurrence; the IRC must solicit public comment and consider legislative suggestions on draft maps.
- In 2012 the IRC adopted a congressional map. The Arizona Legislature sued, seeking a declaration that Proposition 106 violates the Elections Clause (U.S. Const. art. I § 4) and an injunction preventing use of IRC maps.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of standing; Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. The three-judge court held a consolidated hearing and resolved those motions.
- The court held the Legislature has standing and the claim is justiciable, rejected defenses of laches and of bar under the Arizona Voter Protection Act at the motion-to-dismiss stage, but granted dismissal on the merits: the Elections Clause does not forbid Arizona from using its lawmaking process (including initiative) to assign redistricting authority to the IRC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Legislature has standing to sue over loss of redistricting authority | Loss of authority to draw congressional districts is a concrete institutional injury | No standing because alleged injury is abstract institutional dilution | Held: Legislature has standing; prior Supreme Court cases suggest cognizable injury |
| Whether the claim is barred by laches or the Arizona Voter Protection Act | Action timely and not barred; lawsuit is not legislative repeal | Defendants: Plaintiff delayed (laches); suit is effectively a legislative repeal barred by VPA | Held: Laches not resolved on dismissal record; VPA does not bar a judicial challenge to constitutionality |
| Whether the Elections Clause requires that only the representative legislature may prescribe the manner of congressional elections (i.e., redistricting) | “Legislature” means representative legislative body; cannot be entirely divested of redistricting authority | Elections Clause refers to the State’s lawmaking function; states may allocate redistricting via their lawmaking processes (e.g., initiative, referendum, gubernatorial veto) | Held: Elections Clause does not prohibit Arizona from using initiative to vest redistricting power in the IRC; dismissal for failure to state a claim granted |
| Justiciability of Guarantee Clause-type arguments that IRC is not a representative legislature | Such claims challenge republican form of government and are relevant to redistricting | Defendants contend such Guarantee Clause arguments are nonjusticiable political questions | Held: Guarantee Clause arguments are nonjusticiable; court declines to resolve them |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (Supreme Court) (state referendum treated as part of the state’s legislative power for Elections Clause purposes)
- Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (Supreme Court) (Elections Clause requires use of a state’s usual lawmaking procedures; gubernatorial veto applies to redistricting as a matter of state polity)
- Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court) (reapportionment is primarily the State’s responsibility and may be performed by state bodies other than the legislature)
- Brown v. Secretary of State of Florida, 668 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2012) ("Legislature" in Elections Clause encompasses the state’s lawmaking function, including initiative)