Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 42

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

3 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

The  Elections  Clause  both  imposes  a  duty  on  States  and 
assigns  that  duty  to  a  particular  state  actor:  In  the  ab-
sence  of  a  valid  congressional  directive  to  the  contrary,
States must draw district lines for their federal represent-
atives.  And that duty “shall” be carried out “in each State 
by the Legislature thereof.”

In  Arizona,  however,  redistricting  is  not  carried  out  by
the legislature.  Instead, as the result of a ballot initiative, 
an  unelected  body  called  the  Independent  Redistricting
Commission  draws  the  lines.    See  ante,  at  6–7.    The  key
question  in  the  case  is  whether  the  Commission  can  con-
duct congressional districting consistent with the directive
that such authority be exercised “by the Legislature.”

The majority concedes that the unelected Commission is
not  “the  Legislature”  of  Arizona.  The  Court  contends 
instead  that  the  people  of  Arizona  as  a  whole  constitute 
“the Legislature” for purposes of the Elections Clause, and
that  they  may  delegate  the  congressional  districting  au-
thority conferred by that Clause to the Commission.  Ante, 
at 25.  The majority provides no support for the delegation 
part  of  its  theory,  and  I  am  not  sure  whether  the  major-
ity’s analysis is correct on that issue.  But even giving the
Court the benefit of the doubt in that regard, the Commis-
sion  is  still  unconstitutional.  Both  the  Constitution  and 
our  cases  make  clear  that  “the  Legislature”  in  the  Elec-
tions  Clause  is  the  representative  body  which  makes  the
laws of the people. 

A 
The  majority  devotes  much  of  its  analysis  to  establish-
ing  that  the  people  of  Arizona  may  exercise  lawmaking 
power  under  their  State  Constitution.    See  ante,  at  5–6, 
25,  27–28.  Nobody  doubts  that.  This  case  is  governed,
however, by the Federal Constitution.  The States do not, 
in  the  majority’s  words,  “retain  autonomy  to  establish 
their  own  governmental  processes,”  ante,  at  27,  if  those