## Facts

- Arizona’s constitution historically authorized the Arizona State Legislature to draw congressional districts, subject to gubernatorial veto.
- In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, amending the state constitution to transfer congressional redistricting authority from the Legislature to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
- Arizona’s constitution authorizes lawmaking by ballot initiative, treating the electorate’s initiative power as part of the state’s lawmaking authority.
- Following the 2010 census, the AIRC adopted new congressional and state legislative maps.
- In 2012, the Arizona State Legislature sued, challenging only the congressional map on the ground that Proposition 106 violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- A three-judge federal district court held the Legislature had standing and rejected the Elections Clause challenge, reasoning that “Legislature” in the Elections Clause refers to the state’s lawmaking process, which in Arizona includes initiatives.
- The Legislature took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Arizona State Legislature had Article III standing to challenge the transfer of congressional redistricting authority to the AIRC.
2. Whether the Elections Clause (and related federal redistricting statutes) require congressional districting to be performed by the institutional state legislature, thereby invalidating an initiative-created independent redistricting commission.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in a 5–4 decision (Justice Ginsburg).
- The Court held the Arizona State Legislature had standing based on an institutional injury to its claimed constitutional prerogative to draw congressional districts.
- The Court held that the Elections Clause permits a state to assign congressional redistricting to an independent commission created through the state’s lawmaking process, including by voter initiative.
- The Court concluded Arizona’s use of the AIRC to draw congressional districts was constitutional.

## Legal Principles

- A state legislature may have Article III standing when it alleges a concrete institutional injury to its authority within the state’s constitutional structure.
- For Elections Clause purposes, “Legislature” can refer to the state’s lawmaking function as defined by the state constitution, not solely the elected representative assembly.
- Redistricting is a legislative function that must be carried out in conformity with the state’s prescribed lawmaking procedures, which may include direct democracy mechanisms such as initiatives or referenda.
- Federal law governing congressional districting does not bar states from implementing congressional maps through an initiative-created commission when that mechanism is part of the state’s lawmaking process.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Arizona’s initiative-based transfer of congressional redistricting authority from the institutional legislature to an independent commission fits within the Elections Clause because the clause accommodates the state’s constitutionally defined lawmaking process, and it further held the Legislature had standing to bring the challenge.


Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015)