Professor Nate Persily weighs in on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Committee and the impact it will have across the country. 

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Arizona’s use of an independent commission to redraw congressional districts is constitutional, leaving the state’s maps intact for the 2016 election — a victory for reform groups pushing for removing politically motivated state lawmakers from the redistricting process.

In a 5-4 decision, the court found that the commission created by a ballot initiative in Arizona falls under the definition of “legislature” in the federal constitution’s Elections Clause — which states that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof.

———————

“Now these states that have redistricting commissions can rest easy,” said Nate Persily, a redistricting expert at Stanford Law School. “The court really walked away from the brink on this one. This really does settle a question that had been open … whether the legislature means just the legislature or the legislative process.”