Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

28 

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA 
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMM’N
 
Opinion of the Court 

right  to  do  so.”).    “Through  the  structure  of  its  govern­
ment, and the character of those who exercise government
authority, a State defines itself as a sovereign.”  Gregory v. 
Ashcroft,  501  U. S.  452,  460  (1991).    Arizona  engaged  in
definition  of  that  kind  when  its  people  placed  both  the
initiative  power  and  the  AIRC’s  redistricting  authority  in
the  portion  of  the  Arizona  Constitution  delineating  the
State’s  legislative  authority.    See  Ariz.  Const.,  Art.  IV; 
supra, at 5–6. 

This Court has “long recognized the role of the States as
laboratories  for  devising  solutions  to  difficult  legal  prob­
lems.”  Oregon v. Ice, 555 U. S. 160, 171 (2009); see United 
States  v.  Lopez,  514  U. S.  549,  581  (1995)  (KENNEDY,  J., 
concurring)  (“[T]he  States  may  perform  their  role  as  lab­
oratories  for  experimentation  to  devise  various  solutions
where the best solution is far from clear.”); New State Ice 
Co.  v.  Liebmann,  285  U. S.  262,  311  (1932)  (Brandeis,  J.,
dissenting) (“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal 
system  that  a  single  courageous  State  may,  if  its  citizens
choose,  serve  as  a  laboratory;  and  try  novel  social  and
economic experiments without risk to the rest of the coun­
try.”).  Deference to state lawmaking “allows local policies 
‘more  sensitive  to  the  diverse  needs  of  a  heterogeneous 
society,’ permits ‘innovation and experimentation,’ enables
greater  citizen  ‘involvement  in  democratic  processes,’  and 
makes government ‘more responsive by putting the States 
in  competition  for  a  mobile  citizenry.’ ”    Bond  v.  United 
States,  564  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2011)  (slip  op.,  at  9)  (quoting 
Gregory, 501 U. S., at 458). 

We  resist  reading  the  Elections  Clause  to  single  out 
federal elections as the one area in which States may not 
use citizen initiatives as an alternative legislative process. 
Nothing in  that Clause instructs,  nor has this Court ever
held, that a state legislature may prescribe regulations on 
the time, place, and manner of holding federal elections in 
defiance  of  provisions  of  the  State’s  constitution.    See