Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 58.0

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

19 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
 

* 

* 

* 
The  constitutional  text,  structure,  history,  and  prece-
dent establish a straightforward rule: Under the Elections 
Clause,  “the  Legislature”  is  a  representative  body  that,
when it prescribes election regulations, may be required to 
do so within the ordinary lawmaking process, but may not
be  cut  out  of  that  process.    Put  simply,  the  state  legisla-
ture need not be exclusive in congressional districting, but 
neither may it be excluded.

The  majority’s  contrary  understanding  requires  it  to
accept a definition of “the Legislature” that contradicts the 
term’s  plain  meaning,  creates  discord  with  the  Seven-
teenth  Amendment  and  the  Constitution’s  many  other
uses  of  the  term,  makes  nonsense  of  the  drafting  and 
ratification  of  the  Elections  Clause,  and  breaks  with  the 
relevant  precedents.    In  short,  the  effect  of  the  majority’s
decision is to erase the words “by the Legislature thereof ” 
from  the  Elections  Clause.    That  is  a  judicial  error  of  the 
most basic order.  “It cannot be presumed that any clause 
in  the  constitution  is  intended  to  be  without  effect;  and 
therefore such a construction is inadmissible.”  Marbury v. 
Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803). 

II 

The  Court  also  issues  an  alternative  holding  that  a 
federal  statute,  2  U. S. C.  §2a(c),  permits  Arizona  to  vest
redistricting authority in the Commission.  Ante, at 19–23. 
The majority does not contend that this statutory holding 
resolves the constitutional question presented, see ante, at 
23,  so  its  reading  of  Section  2a(c)  is  largely  beside  the 
point.  With respect, its statutory argument is also hard to 
take  seriously.  Section  2a(c)  does  not  apply  to  this  case.
And even if it did, it would likely be unconstitutional.4 

—————— 

4 Not surprisingly, Section 2a(c) was barely raised below and was not 

addressed by the District Court.  See ante, at 19, n. 18.