Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 37

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

33 

Opinion of the Court 

1808.  But  “they  have  succeeded  to  a  great  degree  [in 
limiting  the  conflict  of  interest  implicit  in  legislative  con­
trol  over  redistricting].”    Ibid.  They  thus  impede  legisla­
tors  from  choosing  their  voters  instead  of  facilitating  the 
voters’ choice of their representatives. 

4 
Banning  lawmaking  by  initiative  to  direct  a  State’s
method  of  apportioning  congressional  districts  would  do 
more than stymie attempts to curb partisan gerrymander­
ing, by which the majority in the legislature draws district
lines to their party’s advantage.  It would also cast doubt 
on numerous other election laws adopted by the initiative 
method of legislating. 

The  people,  in  several  States,  functioning  as  the  law­
making body for the purpose at hand, have used the initia­
tive  to  install  a  host  of  regulations  governing  the  “Times, 
Places and Manner” of holding federal elections.  Art. I, §4.
For example, the people of California provided for perma­
nent voter registration, specifying that “no amendment by
the  Legislature  shall  provide  for  a  general  biennial  or 
other  periodic  reregistration  of  voters.”    Cal.  Elec.  Code 
Ann.  §2123  (West  2003).  The  people  of  Ohio  banned  bal­
lots  providing  for  straight-ticket  voting  along  party  lines.
Ohio Const., Art. V, §2a.  The people of Oregon shortened 
the  deadline  for  voter  registration  to  20  days  prior  to  an
election.  Ore. Const., Art. II, §2.  None of those measures 
permit  the  state  legislatures  to  override  the  people’s  pre­
scriptions.  The  Arizona  Legislature’s  theory—that  the
lead role in regulating federal elections cannot be wrested 
from “the Legislature,” and vested in commissions initiated 
by the people—would endanger all of them.

The  list  of  endangered  state  elections  laws,  were  we  to
sustain the position of the Arizona Legislature, would not 
stop  with  popular  initiatives.    Almost  all  state  constitu­
tions  were  adopted  by  conventions  and  ratified  by  voters