Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

making its regulations under the same provision would be 
subject to the veto power of the President.”  Ibid.; see also 
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 6 (1964) (Congress does 
not have “exclusive authority” under the Elections Clause, 
independent  of  other  federal  constitutional  provisions). 
And “long and continuous interpretation” as evidenced by 
“the  established  practice  in  the  states”  provided  further 
support.  Smiley,  285  U. S.,  at  369.    We  noted  that  many
state constitutions had adopted provisions allowing for ex-
ecutive vetoes, “and that the uniform practice . . . has been 
to  provide  for  congressional  districts  by  the  enactment  of 
statutes  with  the  participation  of  the  Governor  wherever 
the state constitution provided for such participation.”  Id., 
at 370. 

This  Court  recently  reinforced  the  teachings  of  Hilde-
brant and Smiley in a case considering the constitutionality 
of an Arizona ballot initiative.  Voters “amended Arizona’s 
Constitution to remove redistricting authority from the Ar-
izona Legislature and vest that authority in an independent 
commission.”    Arizona  State  Legislature  v.  Arizona  Inde-
pendent  Redistricting  Comm’n,  576  U. S.  787,  792  (2015). 
The  Arizona  Legislature  challenged  a  congressional  map 
adopted  by  the  commission,  arguing  that  the  Elections
“Clause precludes resort to an independent commission . . . 
to accomplish redistricting.”  Ibid.  A divided Court rejected 
that argument.  The majority reasoned that dictionaries of 
“the founding era . . . capaciously define[d] the word ‘legis-
lature,’ ” id., at 813–814, and concluded that the people of 
Arizona retained the authority to create “an alternative leg-
islative process” by vesting the lawmaking power of redis-
tricting  in  an  independent  commission,  id.,  at  817.  The 
Court  ruled,  in  short,  that  although  the  Elections  Clause
expressly refers to the “Legislature,” it does not preclude a
State from vesting congressional redistricting authority in
a body other than the elected group of officials who ordinar-
ily exercise lawmaking power.  States, the Court explained,