06-29-2015, 04:16 PM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf
Arizona had a ballot referendum that created an independent commission to draw their congressional districts. It was passed by the voters and prevented the GOP controlled legislature from deciding how to draw the lines.
The problem is that the Constitution says that this is the job of the state legislatures. In Arizona, the people have the same power of the legislature when it comes to ballot initiatives. Anything they can do, the people can also do via the ballot.
The Arizona legislature argued that the Constitution makes it clear that they have the power, making the independent commission unconstitutional. The independent commission argued, though, that they fact that the people are given this power to act as the legislature, setting up the independent commission via the ballot initiative was an act of the legislature.
The court ruled in favor (5-4) of the commission. Roberts authored the dissent in which he said that they're "playing magic" with the clause that grants the power of drawing lines to the legislatures. He argues the purist sense of the word.
As someone who dislikes gerrymandering. I also support a state allowing its citizens to share the power of the legislature via referendum. If Arizona wants their citizens to have this power, and each state is charged with setting up their legislature, they can't complain when the people do something that the majority of the legislature opposed and ask the Federal Courts to reverse it.
I initially did not like the ruling of this case before I read that the people have this power in Arizona as I thought they were playing loose with the definition of the "legislature".
Arizona had a ballot referendum that created an independent commission to draw their congressional districts. It was passed by the voters and prevented the GOP controlled legislature from deciding how to draw the lines.
The problem is that the Constitution says that this is the job of the state legislatures. In Arizona, the people have the same power of the legislature when it comes to ballot initiatives. Anything they can do, the people can also do via the ballot.
The Arizona legislature argued that the Constitution makes it clear that they have the power, making the independent commission unconstitutional. The independent commission argued, though, that they fact that the people are given this power to act as the legislature, setting up the independent commission via the ballot initiative was an act of the legislature.
The court ruled in favor (5-4) of the commission. Roberts authored the dissent in which he said that they're "playing magic" with the clause that grants the power of drawing lines to the legislatures. He argues the purist sense of the word.
As someone who dislikes gerrymandering. I also support a state allowing its citizens to share the power of the legislature via referendum. If Arizona wants their citizens to have this power, and each state is charged with setting up their legislature, they can't complain when the people do something that the majority of the legislature opposed and ask the Federal Courts to reverse it.
I initially did not like the ruling of this case before I read that the people have this power in Arizona as I thought they were playing loose with the definition of the "legislature".
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
