Page:Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n.pdf/34

30 Profiles: 39th Congress (1865–1867), http://history.house.gov/Congressional-Overview/Profiles/39th/; Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: Trowbridge, Rowland Ebenezer (1821–1881). Cf. Cain, 121 Yale L. J., at 1817 (identifying legislative conflict of interest as the problem independent redistricting commissions aimed to check). In short, Baldwin is not a disposition that should attract this Court’s reliance.

We add, furthermore, that the Arizona Legislature does not question, nor could it, employment of the initiative to control state and local elections. In considering whether Article I, §4, really says “No” to similar control of federal elections, we have looked to, and borrow from, Alexander Hamilton’s counsel: “[I]t would have been hardly advisable … to establish, as a fundamental point, what would deprive several States of the convenience of having the elections for their own governments and for the national government” held at the same times and places, and in the same manner. The Federalist No. 61, at 374. The Elec­tions Clause is not sensibly read to subject States to that deprivation.

The Framers may not have imagined the modern initia­tive process in which the people of a State exercise legisla­tive power coextensive with the authority of an institu­tional legislature. But the invention of the initiative was in full harmony with the Constitution’s conception of the people as the font of governmental power. As Madison put it: “The genius of republican liberty seems to demand … not only that all power should be derived from the people,