Hopefully, more states will make redistricting more non-partisan:
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Arizona’s voters were entitled to try to make the process of drawing congressional district lines less partisan.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in the 5-to-4 decision. She was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 13-1314, concerned an independent commission created by Arizona voters in 2000. About a dozen states have experimented with redistricting commissions that have varying degrees of independence from the state legislatures, which ordinarily draw election maps. Arizona’s commission is most similar to California’s.
The Arizona commission has five members, with two chosen by Republican lawmakers and two by Democratic lawmakers. The final member is chosen by the other four. Republican lawmakers have complained that the commission’s latest efforts favored Democrats.
The Republican-led State Legislature sued, saying the voters did not have the power to strip elected lawmakers of their power to draw district lines. They pointed to a provision of the federal Constitution that says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
A divided three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Arizona ruled in favor of the commission, saying the Constitution’s reference to the “legislature” included ballot initiatives like the 2000 measure.
“The elections clause does not prohibit a state from vesting the power to conduct congressional redistricting elsewhere within its legislative powers,” Judge G. Murray Snow wrote for the majority.
Partisanship and Redistricting
In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the court found that voters had the power to strip elected lawmakers of their authority to draw district lines.
5-4
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/u...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Arizona’s voters were entitled to try to make the process of drawing congressional district lines less partisan.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in the 5-to-4 decision. She was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 13-1314, concerned an independent commission created by Arizona voters in 2000. About a dozen states have experimented with redistricting commissions that have varying degrees of independence from the state legislatures, which ordinarily draw election maps. Arizona’s commission is most similar to California’s.
The Arizona commission has five members, with two chosen by Republican lawmakers and two by Democratic lawmakers. The final member is chosen by the other four. Republican lawmakers have complained that the commission’s latest efforts favored Democrats.
The Republican-led State Legislature sued, saying the voters did not have the power to strip elected lawmakers of their power to draw district lines. They pointed to a provision of the federal Constitution that says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
A divided three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Arizona ruled in favor of the commission, saying the Constitution’s reference to the “legislature” included ballot initiatives like the 2000 measure.
“The elections clause does not prohibit a state from vesting the power to conduct congressional redistricting elsewhere within its legislative powers,” Judge G. Murray Snow wrote for the majority.
Partisanship and Redistricting
In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the court found that voters had the power to strip elected lawmakers of their authority to draw district lines.
5-4
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/u...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
