Page:Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n.pdf/6

2 In 2000, Arizona voters adopted an initiative, Proposi­tion 106, aimed at “ending the practice of gerrymandering and improving voter and candidate participation in elec­tions.” App. 50. Proposition 106 amended Arizona’s Con­stitution to remove redistricting authority from the Arizona Legislature and vest that authority in an independent commission, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC or Commission). After the 2010 census, as after the 2000 census, the AIRC adopted redistricting maps for congressional as well as state legislative districts.

The Arizona Legislature challenged the map the Com­mission adopted in January 2012 for congressional dis­tricts. Recognizing that the voters could control redistrict­ing for state legislators, Brief for Appellant 42, 47; Tr. of Oral Arg. 3–4, the Arizona Legislature sued the AIRC in federal court seeking a declaration that the Commission and its map for congressional districts violated the “Elec­tions Clause” of the U. S. Constitution. That Clause, critical to the resolution of this case, provides: "“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Con­gress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations … .” Art. I, §4, cl. 1."

The Arizona Legislature’s complaint alleged that “[t]he word ‘Legislature’ in the Elections Clause means [specifi­cally and only] the representative body which makes the laws of the people,” App. 21, ¶37; so read, the Legislature urges, the Clause precludes resort to an independent commission, created by initiative, to accomplish redistrict­ing. The AIRC responded that, for Elections Clause pur­poses, “the Legislature” is not confined to the elected representatives; rather, the term encompasses all legisla­tive authority conferred by the State Constitution,