Although not a new issue, redistricting has become highly contentious again, this time in Arizona. In more than half of the states in the country state legislators are the sole groups responsible for the redistricting process. However, some states have created alternative methods for the redistricting process such as the formation of unbiased and/or independent or bipartisan commissions.
Since 2000, Arizona has become one of one seven states that utilizes a specially formed bipartisan commission to determine the district’s electoral geography, with the goal of reducing political bias. [1] This bipartisan commission was created through a referendum, Proposition 106, and is composed of two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent designated to chair the commission. Until recently, this method was successfully utilized to establish more politically balanced districts, free of a purposeful political majority. As a result of the redistricting, there still remained safe Republican and Democratic seats, however, the state typically still had a few competitive seats, making political races more fair. As neither political party wanted to lose their chances of maintaining a safe seat the Republican Governor Jan Brewer (sworn in 2009), chose to fire the chair of the committee, Colleen Coyle Mathis, in December of 2011. The Arizona Supreme Court had a hearing over the issue of the firing and ruled that it was without just cause and reinstated her as commission chair. [2]
Earlier this year the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2013) and rejected the challenge against the electoral commission, finding the commission within the proper use of the term “legislature” of the Elections Clause of the Constitution. Because Republican state officials remained dissatisfied with the Arizona Supreme Court decision, they have filed an appeal that has made its way to the US Supreme Court, which heard the case over Arizona redistricting on March 2, 2015. [3] [4] Arizona Republicans presented the argument that state election issues should be left to the state legislatures as is mandated by part of the Elections Clause of the Constitution. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement argued that the founding fathers did not intend for a direct democracy, and that the state legislatures are responsible for elections within individual states. Clement like many other Republicans do not believe that the authority to influence elections through redistricting should be left to an “unelected and unaccountable commission”. Currently, the only available option for the state legislature to regain control of the redistricting process would be for the state to have another referendum to place the process back under the legislature’s jurisdiction. However, the likely result of another referendum is anticipated to be unfavorable to the legislature. [5]
The opposing position led by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, argues that the Republicans are misreading the Constitution, and that the word “legislature” within the Constitution has a quite broad definition, comprising the “entity or collection of individuals that made the law” which would include the people of Arizona. Olson fears that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the collective view of Arizona Republicans held view that the legislature has the authority to create districts, the districts would become progressively uneven and favor the particular party in power, creating more safe seats and non-competitive elections. Olson also contends that by allowing the commission to continue, the people, who created it through referendum, are part of the legislative process, which he believes to be one of the original and fundamental ideals of the founding fathers. Therefore Olson holds that the referendum is a legal, constitutionally allowed amendment to the state Constitution. [6]
During the US Supreme Court proceeding in the case of Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the justices that tend to favor more conservative rulings appeared more opposed to electoral redistricting commissions being seen as constitutional, while the more liberal justices favored the position supporting the constitutionality of laws that allow these commissions. As of now, it appears that the deciding vote will be determined by which side Justice Kennedy finds Constitutional. Justice Kagan, who was the most actively vocal while hearing the case posed the question of what would happen if this commission was found unconstitutional as she asserted, “you take the 2011 law in Mississippi adopting voter ID requirements; 2007, Oregon, voting by mail; 1962, Arkansas, use of voting machines. All of these things were done by referendum or by initiative with the legislative process completely cut out. So would all of those be unconstitutional as well?”. [7]
Depending on the ruling, other states’ laws would likely be impacted, which would have far-reaching consequences that could significantly influence the 2016 national election. [8]
References
1. "Independent Redistricting Commission." Independent Redistricting Commission. AZ.gov, n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
2. Totenberg, Nina. "Supreme Court To Weigh Power Of Redistricting Commissions." NPR. NPR, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 06 Mar. 2015.
3. "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission." SCOTUSblog RSS. SCOTUSblog, n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
4. Parti, Tarini. "High Court Hears Redistricting Case." POLITICO. POLITICO LLC, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Mar. 2015
5. Totenberg, Nina. "Supreme Court To Weigh Power Of Redistricting Commissions." NPR. NPR, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 06 Mar. 2015.
6. Ibid.
7. Parti, Tarini. "High Court Hears Redistricting Case." POLITICO. POLITICO LLC, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Mar. 2015
8. Ibid.