Page:Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n.pdf/31

Rh While attention focused on potential abuses by state-level politicians, and the consequent need for congressional oversight, the legislative processes by which the States could exercise their initiating role in regulating congres­sional elections occasioned no debate. That is hardly surprising. Recall that when the Constitution was com­posed in Philadelphia and later ratified, the people’s legis­lative prerogatives—the initiative and the referendum—were not yet in our democracy’s arsenal. See supra, at 3–5. The Elections Clause, however, is not reasonably read to disarm States from adopting modes of legislation that place the lead rein in the people’s hands.

The Arizona Legislature maintains that, by specifying “the Legislature thereof,” the Elections Clause renders the State’s representative body the sole “component of state government authorized to prescribe … regulations … for congressional redistricting.” Brief for Appellant 30. , in dissent, agrees. But it is characteristic of our federal system that States retain autonomy to establish their own governmental processes. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 752 (1999) (“A State is entitled to order the processes of its own governance.”); The Federal­ist No. 43, at 272 (J. Madison) (“Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a