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

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

http://azredistricting.org/Maps/Final-Maps/default.asp  (all
Internet materials as visited June 25, 2015, and included 
in Clerk of Court’s case file).  Less than four months later, 
on  June  6,  2012,  the  Arizona  Legislature  filed  suit  in  the
United  States  District  Court  for  the  District  of  Arizona, 
naming as defendants the AIRC, its five members, and the
Arizona Secretary of State.  The Legislature sought both a
declaration  that  Proposition  106  and  congressional  maps 
adopted by the AIRC are unconstitutional, and, as affirm­
ative  relief,  an  injunction  against  use  of  AIRC  maps  for 
any congressional election after the 2012 general election.
A  three-judge  District  Court,  convened  pursuant  to  28
U. S. C.  §2284(a),  unanimously  denied  a  motion  by  the 
AIRC to dismiss the suit for lack of standing.  The Arizona 
Legislature, the court determined, had “demonstrated that
its  loss  of  redistricting  power  constitute[d]  a  [sufficiently] 
concrete  injury.”    997  F. Supp.  2d  1047,  1050  (2014).    On 
the merits, dividing two to one, the District Court granted
the  AIRC’s  motion  to  dismiss  the  complaint  for  failure  to 
state  a  claim.  Decisions  of  this  Court,  the  majority  con­
cluded,  “demonstrate  that  the  word  ‘Legislature’  in  the
Elections  Clause  refers  to  the  legislative  process  used  in 
[a] state, determined by that state’s own constitution and
laws.”  Id., at 1054.  As the “lawmaking power” in Arizona
“plainly  includes  the  power  to  enact  laws  through  initia­
tive,”  the  District  Court  held,  the  “Elections  Clause  per­
mits  [Arizona’s]  establishment  and  use”  of  the  Commis­
sion.  Id.,  at  1056.    Judge  Rosenblatt  dissented  in  part.
Proposition  106,  in  his  view,  unconstitutionally  denied 
“the  Legislature”  of  Arizona  the  “ability  to  have  any  out­
come-defining  effect  on  the  congressional  redistricting 
process.”  Id., at 1058. 

We postponed jurisdiction, and now affirm. 

II 
We  turn  first  to  the  threshold  question:  Does  the  Ari­