Page:Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n.pdf/19

Rh proceed to the merits.

On the merits, we instructed the parties to address this question: Do the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. §2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts? The Elec­tions Clause is set out at the start of this opinion, supra, at. Section 2a(c) provides: "“Until a State is redistricted in the manner pro­vided by the law thereof after any apportionment, the Representatives to which such State is entitled under such apportionment shall be elected in the following manner: [setting out five federally prescribed redis­tricting procedures].”"

Before focusing directly on the statute and constitutional prescriptions in point, we summarize this Court’s prece­dent relating to appropriate state decisionmakers for redistricting purposes. Three decisions compose the rele­vant case law: ''Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U. S. 565 (1916); Hawke v. Smith (No. 1), 253 U. S. 221 (1920); and Smiley v. Holm'', 285 U. S. 355 (1932).

Davis v. Hildebrant involved an amendment to the Constitution of Ohio vesting in the people the right, exer­cisable by referendum, to approve or disapprove by popu­lar vote any law enacted by the State’s legislature. A 1915 Act redistricting the State for the purpose of congressional