Case Summary
Arizona voters approved a constitutional ballot initiative in 2000 transferring redistricting authority from their state’s legislature to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (“AIRC”), which adopted new congressional and legislative maps for the state following the 2010 Census. On June 7, 2012, the Arizona State Legislature filed a federal lawsuit against the AIRC alleging both the AIRC and its maps violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause (Art. I, § 4). Plaintiffs argued the Elections Clause, which states the “times, places and manner” of holding elections shall be “prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof”, precluded the transfer of redistricting authority to an independent commission via ballot initiative.
- On February 24, 2024, the federal district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court two days later.
- SCOTUS heard oral arguments on March 2, 2015.
- On June 29, 2015, SCOTUS upheld the AIRC as constitutional, finding the Elections Clause permitted the citizens of a state to transfer redistricting authority from its legislature to an independent commission. Citing its decision in Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrandt that redistricting is a legislative function to be carried out via a state’s legislative powers, the Court found this included citizen-led initiative processes when a state’s lawmaking procedures otherwise provide for it. The Court explained the history and purpose of the Elections Clause was primarily to authorize Congress to override state election rules, not to restrict the way states enacted election legislation. While the Framers may not have imagined the modern initiative process being equal with the state legislature’s legislative authority, it would be “perverse” to interpret the Clause as excluding lawmaking by the people.
Significance: The U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause does not prohibit the use of citizen-initiated legislative powers to transfer a state's redistricting authority from the state's legislature to an independent redistricting commission.
Case Library
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division - 2:12-cv-01211
- Complaint - 6/7/12
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Statutory Court - 6/8/12
- Order - 6/13/12
- Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's June 13, 2012 Order - 6/27/12
- Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration - 7/20/12
- Amended Complaint - 7/20/12
- Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration - 7/30/12
- Defendant Ken Bennett's Answer to Amended Complaint - 8/10/12
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - 8/10/12
- Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - 8/27/12
- Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss - 9/7/12
- Joint Notice - 5/29/13
- Plaintiff's Rule 1 Motion and Supporting Memorandum - 8/5/13
- Order - 8/14/13
- Order Designating Three Judge Panel - 8/23/13
- Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority - 9/10/13
- Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for a Consolidated Hearing and Trial on the Merits and Request for Judicial Notice - 10/3/13
- Stipulation Regarding Defendants' Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction - 10/7/13
- Order Granting Stipulation - 10/7/13
- Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Consolidation, and Judicial Notice - 10/18/13
- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, a Consolidated Hearing, Trial on the Merits, and Judicial Notice - 10/28/13
- Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae by Dennis Burke, et al. - 12/5/13
- Order - 12/19/13
- Brief of Amici Curiae Arizona Advocacy Network, Dennis Burke, et al. - 12/19/13
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing - 12/23/13
- Plaintiff's Response to Amici Curiae Brief - 1/8/14
- Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing - 1/20/14
- Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing - 1/30/14
- Motion to Intervene by Maricopa County, Arizona - 1/31/14
- Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Intervene - 2/5/14
- Opinion and Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - 2/21/14
- Judgment - 2/24/14
- Notice of Appeal - 2/26/14
U.S. Supreme Court - No. 13-1314 [576 U.S. 787 (2015)]
- Appellant's Jurisdictional Statement - 4/28/14
- Appellees' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm - 6/30/14
- Reply Brief for Appellant - 7/14/14
- Joint Appendix - 12/2/14
- Brief for Appellant - 12/2/14
- Brief of Amicus Curiae National Conference of State Legislatures in Support of Appellant - 12/9/14
- Brief of Amici Curiae Thomas Mann & Norman Ornstein in Support of Appellees - 1/23/15
- Brief of Amici Curiae Jack N. Rakove, et al., in Support of Appellees - 1/23/15
- Brief of Amici Curiae The Campaign Legal Center, et al., in Support of Appellees - 1/23/15
- Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars and Historians of Congressional Redistricting in Support of Appellees - 1/23/15
- Brief of Amici Curiae Former Gov. Jim Edgar, et al., in Support of Appellees - 1/23/15
- Brief of Amici Curiae Former California Governors George Deukmejian, et al. in Support of Appellees - 1/23/15
- Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees - 1/23/15
- Brief of Amici Curiae League of Women Voters of Arizona, et al., Supporting Appellees - 1/23/15
- Amicus Brief of the States of Washington, California, et al., in Support of Respondents - 1/23/15
- Brief of Amicus Curiae California Citizens Redistricting Commission in Support of Appellees - 1/23/15
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law in Support of Appellees - 1/30/15
- Second Reply Brief for Appellant - 2/17/15
- Oral Argument Transcript - 3/2/15
- Opinion - 6/29/15