Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

ing initiatives adopted by the people themselves.

A three-judge District Court held, unanimously, that the
Arizona  Legislature  had  standing  to  sue;  dividing  two  to
one, the Court rejected the Legislature’s complaint on the
merits.  We  postponed  jurisdiction  and  instructed  the
parties  to  address  two  questions:  (1)  Does  the  Arizona 
Legislature  have  standing  to  bring  this  suit?  (2)  Do  the
Elections  Clause  of  the  United  States  Constitution  and  2 
U. S. C.  §2a(c)  permit  Arizona’s  use  of  a  commission  to 
adopt congressional districts?  573 U. S. ___ (2014). 

We now affirm the District Court’s judgment.  We hold, 
first, that the Arizona Legislature, having lost authority to 
draw  congressional  districts,  has  standing  to  contest  the 
constitutionality  of  Proposition  106.    Next,  we  hold  that 
lawmaking  power  in  Arizona  includes  the  initiative  proc- 
ess, and that both §2a(c) and the Elections Clause permit 
use  of  the  AIRC  in  congressional  districting  in  the  same 
way  the  Commission  is  used  in  districting  for  Arizona’s
own Legislature. 

I 

A 

Direct lawmaking by the people was “virtually unknown 
when  the  Constitution  of  1787  was  drafted.”    Donovan  & 
Bowler, An Overview of Direct Democracy in the American
States,  in  Citizens  as  Legislators 1  (S.  Bowler,  T.  Don- 
ovan,  &  C.  Tolbert  eds.  1998).    There  were  obvious  pre-
cursors  or  analogues  to  the  direct  lawmaking  operative
today in several States, notably, New England’s town hall 
meetings and the submission of early state constitutions to
the people for ratification.  See Lowell, The Referendum in 
the  United  States,  in  The  Initiative,  Referendum  and 
Recall 126, 127 (W. Munro ed. 1912) (hereinafter IRR); W. 
Dodd,  The  Revision  and  Amendment  of  State  Constitu­