Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 65.0

26 

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA 

INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMM’N
 
ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
 

how  it  has  actually  functioned.  The  facts  described  in  a 
recent  opinion  by  a  three-judge  District  Court  detail  the 
partisanship  that  has  affected  the  Commission  on  issues 
ranging  from  staffing  decisions  to  drawing  the  district 
lines.  See  Harris  v.  Arizona  Independent  Redistricting 
Comm’n, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (Ariz. 2014).  The per curiam
opinion  explained  that  “partisanship  played  some  role 
in the design of the map,” that “some of the commissioners 
were  motivated  in  part  in  some  of  the  linedrawing  deci-
sions  by  a  desire  to  improve  Democratic  prospects  in  the 
affected  districts,”  and  that  the  Commission  retained  a 
mapping  consultant  that  “had  worked  for  Democratic, 
independent, and nonpartisan campaigns, but no Republi-
can  campaigns.”  Id.,  at  1046,  1047,  1053.  The  hiring  of 
the  mapping  consultant  provoked  sufficient  controversy 
that  the  Governor  of  Arizona,  supported  by  two-thirds  of
the Arizona Senate, attempted to remove the chairwoman
of  the  Commission  for  “substantial  neglect  of  duty  and
gross  misconduct  in  office.” 
Id.,  at  1057;  see  Arizona 
Independent  Redistricting  Comm’n  v.  Brewer,  229  Ariz. 
347,  275  P. 3d  1267  (2012)  (explaining  the  removal  and 
concluding  that  the  Governor  exceeded  her  authority
under the Arizona Constitution).

Judge  Silver’s  separate  opinion  noted  that  “the  very 
structure  of  Arizona’s  reformed  redistricting  process  re-
flects that partisanship still plays a prominent role.”  993 
F. Supp.  2d,  at  1083.    Judge  Wake’s  separate  opinion 
described  the  Commission’s  “systematic  overpopulation  of
Republican  plurality  districts  and  underpopulation  of 
Democratic  plurality  districts”  as  “old-fashioned  partisan
malapportionment.”  Id., at 1091, 1108.  In his words, the 
“Commission  has  been  coin-clipping  the  currency  of  our 
democracy—everyone’s  equal  vote—and  giving  all  the 
shavings to one party, for no valid reason.”  Id., at 1092. 

The  District  Court  concluded  by  a  two-to-one  margin
that this partisanship did not rise to the level of a consti-