Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 63

24 

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA 

INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMM’N
 
ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
 

U. S. 437, 449 (1905).  We ought to give effect to the words
they used.

The  majority  today  shows  greater  concern  about  redis-
tricting practices than about the meaning of the Constitu-
tion.  I  recognize  the  difficulties  that  arise  from  trying  to
fashion  judicial  relief  for  partisan  gerrymandering.    See 
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267 (2004); ante, at 1.  But our 
inability to find a manageable standard in that area is no
excuse to abandon a standard of meaningful interpretation
in  this  area.  This  Court  has  stressed  repeatedly  that  a
law’s  virtues  as  a  policy  innovation  cannot  redeem  its 
inconsistency  with  the  Constitution.    “Failure  of  political
will  does  not  justify  unconstitutional  remedies.”  Clinton, 
524  U. S.,  at  449  (KENNEDY,  J.,  concurring);  see  Stern  v. 
Marshall,  564  U. S.  ___  (2011);  Free  Enterprise  Fund  v. 
Public  Company  Accounting  Oversight  Bd.,  561  U. S.  477 
(2010);  Bowsher  v.  Synar,  478  U. S.  714  (1986);  Chadha, 
462 U. S. 919; Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926). 
Indeed, the Court has enforced the text of the Constitu-
tion  to  invalidate  state  laws  with  policy  objectives  remi-
niscent of this one.  Two of our precedents held that States
could not use their constitutions to impose term limits on
their  federal  representatives  in  violation  of  the  United
States  Constitution.    Cook,  531  U. S.  510;  U. S.  Term 
Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779 (1995).  The people
of  the  States  that  enacted  these  reforms  surely  viewed
them  as  measures  that  would  “place  the  lead  rein  in  the 
people’s  hands.”    Ante,  at  27.  Yet  the  Court  refused  to 
accept “that the Framers spent significant time and energy
in  debating  and  crafting  Clauses  that  could  be  easily 
evaded.”  Term  Limits,  514  U. S.,  at  831.    The  majority
approves just such an evasion of the Constitution today.6 

—————— 

6 Term Limits was of course not decided on the abstract principle that
“the people should choose whom they please to govern them.”  Ante, at 
27, n. 24 (quoting 514 U. S., at 783).  If that were the rule, the people