Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 66

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

27 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

tutional  violation.  The  case  is  pending  on  appeal  before
this Court, and I take no position on the merits question. 
But  a  finding  that  the  partisanship  in  the  redistricting
plan  did  not  violate  the  Constitution  hardly  proves  that
the  Commission  is  operating  free  of  partisan  influence—
and  certainly  not  that  it  complies  with  the  Elections 
Clause. 

* 

* 

* 
The  people  of  Arizona  have  concerns  about  the  process
of congressional redistricting in their State.  For better or 
worse,  the  Elections  Clause  of  the  Constitution  does  not 
allow  them  to  address  those  concerns  by  displacing  their 
legislature.    But  it  does  allow  them  to  seek  relief  from 
Congress,  which  can  make  or  alter  the  regulations  pre-
scribed  by  the  legislature.    And  the  Constitution  gives 
them another means of change.  They can follow the lead
of  the  reformers  who  won  passage  of  the  Seventeenth 
Amendment.  Indeed,  several  constitutional  amendments 
over  the  past  century  have  involved  modifications  of  the
electoral  process.  Amdts.  19,  22,  24,  26.  Unfortunately,
today’s  decision  will  only  discourage  this  democratic 
method of change.  Why go through the hassle of writing a 
new  provision  into  the  Constitution  when  it  is  so  much
easier to write an old one out? 

I respectfully dissent.