Arizona’s legislature urged the US supreme court in oral arguments heard to let the state keep its power to draw congressional districts in oral arguments heard on Monday.
The court is working to determine the constitutionality of a ballot measure approved by Arizona voters in 2000. The measure established an independent commission to determine congressional districts in the state and a decision by the nation’s highest court could have wide-ranging implications on voting law.
Under the constitution, state legislatures determine the boundaries of congressional districts. This occurs after each census and is widely understood as a tool for partisan lawmakers to make boundaries that favor whichever political party is in power – also known as gerrymandering.
But the ballot measure expands that power to an independent commissioner made up of two Republicans, two Democrats and an Independent chair. Arizona’s Republican-controlled legislature challenged it as unconstitutional in 2012. The supreme court agreed to take up the case, Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, in 2014.
The court must answer whether expanding this role through a voter-approved process falls in line with the constitutional determination that it must be established by the state legislature. And, whether the state legislature is harmed by the commission.
“Some of the most competitive races in the country are in Arizona now, and I attribute that directly to the commission’s work,” Commission Chair Colleen Coyle Mathis told NPR.
She was eventually fired by Republican governor Jan Brewer, in an attempt to undo the commission’s work, but the Arizona supreme court reversed that decision.
The US supreme court’s leaning was not clear after oral arguments, which lasted an hour and centered on the definition of “legislature.” Their decision is due at the end of June.
The ruling could change the look of the House as the decision may impact other states with similar commission. This includes California, where an independent commission was created after campaigning by Republican governors in the majority Democratic state.
Some of those governors, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, have filed briefs in support of the commission. As has the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Those opposed to the commission, like former Arizona speaker Andy Tobin, who lost a congressional campaign in 2014, say that the commission is also partisan.
“Nobody could argue these congressional lines that were drawn aren’t partisan,” Tobin told Arizona Central. “I don’t think the commission did a good job at all (this time). Ten years ago, they weren’t challenged. They became so partisan that it created the public outcry for this effort.”
