Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 52

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

13 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

Debates  on  the  Federal  Constitution  146  (J.  Elliot  ed.
1836).  After  revision  by  the  Committee  of  Detail,  the 
Clause  included  the  important  limitation  at  issue  here:
“The  times  and  places,  and  the  manner,  of  holding  the 
elections of the members of each house, shall be prescribed 
by  the  legislature  of  each  state;  but  their  provisions  con-
cerning  them  may,  at  any  time,  be  altered  by  the  legisla-
ture  of  the  United  States.”  Id.,  at  225  (emphasis  added).
The insertion of “the legislature” indicates that the Fram-
ers thought carefully about which  entity within the State
was to perform congressional districting.  And the parallel 
between “the legislature of each state” and “the legislature
of  the  United  States”  further  suggests  that  they  meant
“the legislature” as a representative body.

As the majority explains, the debate over the ratification
of the Elections Clause centered on its second part, which 
empowers  Congress  to  “make  or  alter”  regulations  pre-
scribed by “the Legislature” of a State.  See ante, at 25–27. 
Importantly  for  our  purposes,  however,  both  sides  in  this 
debate “recognized the distinction between the state legis-
lature and the people themselves.”  Brown v.  Secretary of 
State  of  Florida,  668  F. 3d  1271,  1275–1276,  n. 4  (CA11 
2012).

The  Anti-Federalists,  for  example,  supported  vesting 
election  regulation  power  solely  in  state  legislatures  be-
cause  state  “legislatures  were  more  numerous  bodies, 
usually  elected  annually,  and  thus  more  likely  to  be  in 
sympathy with the interests of the people.”  Natelson, The 
Original  Scope  of  the  Congressional  Power  to  Regulate
Elections,  13  U.  Pa.  J.  Const.  L.  1,  31  (2010)  (emphasis 
added)  (citing  sources  from  ratification  debates).    Alexan-
der Hamilton and others responded by raising the specter
of state legislatures—which he described as “local admin-
istrations”—deciding  to  “annihilate”  the  Federal  Govern-
ment by “neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to 
administer its affairs.”  The Federalist No. 59, at 363.  As