SCOTUS affirms power of initiative in redistricting case

vote.count_The people can serve as legislators. In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court declared that an initiative by the voters to create a commission in Arizona to draw congressional districts was constitutional. California established a similar commission in 2008 when voters passed Proposition 11 and added congressional redistricting to the commission’s duties with Prop. 20 in 2010.

The case affirms that voters have legislative authority through the initiative process, a powerful boost for initiative lawmaking. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the only Californian on the court, who himself was involved in a California initiative when he practiced law in California, joined the majority.

The case arose when Arizona legislators challenged the right of voters to set the parameters of congressional elections. The U.S. Constitution specifically cites that legislatures are to set the rules of election.

However, the court agreed that the voters can act as legislators.

That’s the way California sees it.

California’s Constitution says, “All political power is inherent in the people.” The next sentence in the Constitution reads: “Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”  That’s just what the voters did in passing Prop. 20 in 2010 – they altered the system of redistricting in an attempt to find a fairer system for the public good.

In fact, in the California Constitution the right of initiative appears ahead of powers granted the Legislature. And the section on the legislative power granted the California Legislature even acknowledges that, “the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.”

The final paragraph of the majority opinion: “The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” The Federalist No. 57, at 350 (J. Madison). In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,” namely, “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.” Berman, Managing Gerrymandering, 83 Texas L. Rev. 781 (2005). The Elec­tions Clause does not hinder that endeavor.”

The decision is a strong endorsement of the initiative process.

1 comment

Write a comment
  1. G. Rick Marshall
    G. Rick Marshall 30 June, 2015, 14:23

    I find it hard to characterize this decision as “a strong endorsement of the initiative process”. A better characterization is from Justice Thomas’ dissent:

    The ballot initiative in this case, unlike those that the Court has previously treated so dismissively, was unusually democracy reducing. It did not ask the people to approve a particular
    redistricting plan through direct democracy, but instead to
    take districting away from the people’s representatives
    and give it to an unelected committee, thereby reducing
    democratic control over the process in the future. The
    Court’s characterization of this as direct democracy at its
    best is rather like praising a plebiscite in a “banana republic”
    that installs a strongman as President for Life. And
    wrapping the analysis in a cloak of federalism does little
    to conceal the flaws in the Court’s reasoning.

    4 ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA
    INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMM’N

    THOMAS, J., dissenting

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

CEOs Rank CA Worst State for Business

MAY 5, 2011 By JOHN SEILER Once again, California garners the booby prize for business climate: For the seventh year

Brown on Drought: Governors can’t make it rain

As the rest of the country remains in a deep freeze, California’s weather is making headlines of its own. 2013

Fiorina celebrated government loans

… and was, apparently, a big fan of Small Business Administration affirmative action. Check out this speech from 2003. It’s funny