Procedural History
135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015)
This case addresses the constitutionality of an independent commission for congressional redistricting established by Arizona voters.
Source: 135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015)
Action: The Arizona State Legislature filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Independent Redistricting Commission.
Outcome: The Superior Court dismissed the case, siding with the Commission.
Significance: The ruling affirmed the state voters’ decision to delegate redistricting authority to an independent commission.
Action: The Arizona State Legislature appealed the dismissal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Outcome: The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, confirming the legality of the Commission.
Significance: This ruling solidified the state’s independent redistricting process as constitutional under state law.
Action: The legislature filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that the Independent Redistricting Commission violated the U.S. Constitution.
Outcome: The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the Commission was constitutional.
Significance: The case highlighted disputes over state versus federal control over redistricting processes.
Action: The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the 9th Circuit's decision affirming the constitutionality of the Commission.
Outcome: The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve conflicting interpretations regarding the Elections Clause of the Constitution.
Significance: The case became crucial in determining the power of state legislatures in the redistricting process.
Action: The U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling.
Outcome: The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision, upholding the use of independent commissions for redistricting.
Significance: This landmark decision upheld the validity of independent redistricting commissions established by voter initiative.
By the time the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, it had already been decided in lower courts, establishing a precedent that independent commissions can be used for congressional redistricting. The central issue was whether the state’s voters had the right under the Elections Clause to create an independent body for this purpose.
The Supreme Court reviewed the case under a de novo standard, assessing the legal interpretations and constitutional questions without deference to the lower courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit, ruling that the independent redistricting commission created by Arizona voters was constitutional.