Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 59

20 

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA 

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

A 
Section 2a(c) establishes a number of default rules that
govern  the  States’  manner  of  electing  representatives 
“[u]ntil  a  State  is  redistricted  in  the  manner  provided  by
the  law  thereof.”    Section  2a(c)  is  therefore  “inapplicable 
unless  the  state  legislature,  and  state  and  federal  courts,
have  all  failed  to  redistrict”  the  State.    Branch  v.  Smith, 
538  U. S.  254,  275  (2003)  (plurality  opinion);  see  id.,  at 
298–300  (O’Connor,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting 
in part).  Here, the Commission has redistricted the State 
“in  the  manner  provided  by  the  law  thereof.”  So  by  its
terms, Section 2a(c) does not come into play in this case. 

The  majority  spends  several  pages  discussing  Section
2a(c), but it conspicuously declines to say that the statute 
actually applies to this case.5  The majority notes that the
pre-1911  versions  of  Section  2a(c)  applied  only  until  “the
legislature”  redistricted  the  State,  while  the  post-1911 
versions applied only until the State is redistricted “in the 
manner  provided  by  the  law  thereof.”    The  majority  also
describes in detail the legislative history that accompanied 
the 1911 amendment.  But if Section 2a(c) does not apply, 
its legislative history is doubly irrelevant.

The  majority  seems  to  suggest  that  Section  2a(c)  some-
how  indicates  federal  approval  for  the  district  lines  that
the  Commission  has  drawn.    See  ante,  at  23.  But  the 
statute  does  nothing  of  the  sort.    Section  2a(c)  explains
what  rules  apply  “[u]ntil  a  State  is  redistricted”;  it  says
nothing  about  what  rules  apply  after  a  State  is  redis-
tricted.  And  it  certainly  does  not  say  that  the  State’s 
redistricting  plan  will  by  some  alchemy  become  federal
law.  No legislative drafter remotely familiar with the English
language  would  say  that  a  State  had  to  follow  default 

—————— 

5 The  majority  is  prepared  to  say  that  Section  2a(c)  has  more  than
“nothing to do with this case.”  Ante, at 23, n. 22.  Not exactly a ringing 
endorsement.