Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 80.0

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

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

ence to such cases would “only embolden the lower courts 
laws  on  questionable  constitutional 
to  reject  state 
grounds.”  Lopez-Valenzuela, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 2). 
And it refused to grant a stay pending appeal of a decision 
purporting  to  require  the  State  of  Alabama  to  issue  mar-
riage licenses to same-sex couples, even though Alabama’s
licensing  laws  had  not  been  challenged  in  that  case.    See 
Strange  v.  Searcy,  574  U. S.  ___  (2015)  (THOMAS,  J.,  dis-
senting from denial of application for stay).  In each deci-
sion,  the  cheers  for  direct  democracy  were  conspicuously
absent. 

Sometimes  disapproval  of  ballot  initiatives  has  been
even more blatant.  Just last Term, one dissenting opinion 
castigated  the  product  of  a  state  ballot  initiative  as  “sty-
mieing  the  right  of  racial  minorities  to  participate  in  the 
political  process.”  Schuette  v.  BAMN,  572  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2014)  (SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  joined  by  GINSBURG,  J.,  dissent-
ing) (slip op., at 1).  It did not hail the ballot initiative as 
the  result  of  a  “State’s  empowerment  of  its  people,”  ante, 
at  19,  nor  offer  any  deference  to  state  lawmaking.  In-
stead,  it  complained  that  “[t]he  majority  of  Michigan
voters changed the rules in the middle of the game, recon-
figuring  the  existing  political  process  . . . .”   Schuette,  572 
U. S.,  at ___ (slip op., at 4).  And it criticized state ballot 
initiatives as biased against racial minorities because such 
minorities “face an especially uphill battle” in seeking the
passage  of  such  initiatives.    Id.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  20). 
How quickly the tune has changed.

And how striking that it changed here.  The ballot initi-
ative  in  this  case,  unlike  those  that  the  Court  has  previ-
ously  treated  so  dismissively,  was  unusually  democracy-
reducing.  It did not ask the people to approve a particular
redistricting plan through direct democracy, but instead to 
take  districting  away  from  the  people’s  representatives
and  give  it  to  an  unelected  committee,  thereby  reducing
democratic  control  over  the  process  in  the  future.    The