Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

25 

Opinion of the Court 

As  to  the  “power  that  makes  laws”  in  Arizona,  initia­
tives  adopted  by  the  voters  legislate  for  the  State  just  as 
measures passed by the representative body do.  See Ariz. 
Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, §1 (“The legislative authority of the 
state  shall  be  vested  in  the  legislature,  consisting  of  a
senate  and  a  house  of  representatives,  but  the  people
reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the
constitution  and  to  enact  or  reject  such  laws  and  amend­
ments at the polls, independently of the legislature.”).  See 
also  Eastlake  v.  Forest  City  Enterprises,  Inc.,  426  U. S. 
668,  672  (1976)  (“In  establishing  legislative  bodies,  the 
people  can  reserve  to  themselves  power  to  deal  directly
with  matters  which  might  otherwise  be  assigned  to  the 
legislature.”).  As well in Arizona, the people may delegate
their  legislative  authority  over  redistricting  to  an  inde­
pendent  commission  just  as  the  representative  body  may
choose  to  do.    See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  15–16  (answering  the
Court’s question, may the Arizona Legislature itself estab­
lish  a  commission  to  attend  to  redistricting,  counsel  for
appellant  responded  yes,  state  legislatures  may  delegate 
their  authority  to  a  commission,  subject  to  their  preroga­
tive to reclaim the authority for themselves). 

1 
The  dominant  purpose  of  the  Elections  Clause,  the
historical  record  bears  out,  was  to  empower  Congress  to
override state election rules, not to restrict the way States
enact  legislation.  As  this  Court  explained  in  Arizona  v. 
Inter  Tribal  Council  of  Ariz.,  Inc.,  570  U. S.  1  (2013),  the 
Clause “was the Framers’ insurance against the possibility 
that  a  State  would  refuse  to  provide  for  the  election  of 
representatives to the Federal Congress.”  Id., at ___ (slip
op.,  at  5)  (citing  The  Federalist  No.  59,  pp.  362–363  (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton)). 

—————— 

Center for Justice at N. Y. U. School of Law as Amicus Curiae 6–7.