Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

35 

Opinion of the Court 

lation  in  Election  Law  Reform,  78  S.  Cal.  L. Rev.  997, 
1006–1008  (2005)  (describing  cases  in  which  “indirect 
pressure of the initiative process . . . was sufficient to spur 
[state]  legislature[s]  to  action”).  Turning  the  coin,  the
legislature’s  responsiveness  to  the  people  its  members 
represent  is  hardly  heightened  when  the  representative
body  can  be  confident  that  what  it  does  will  not  be  over­
turned or modified by the voters themselves. 

* 

* 

* 
Invoking  the  Elections  Clause,  the  Arizona  Legislature
instituted  this  lawsuit  to  disempower  the  State’s  voters 
from  serving  as  the  legislative  power  for  redistricting 
purposes.  But  the  Clause  surely  was  not  adopted  to  di­
minish  a  State’s  authority  to  determine  its  own  lawmak­
ing  processes.  Article  I,  §4,  stems  from  a  different  view.
Both  parts  of  the  Elections  Clause  are  in  line  with  the 
fundamental  premise  that  all  political  power  flows  from 
the  people.  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  404– 
405 (1819).  So comprehended, the Clause doubly empow­
ers  the  people.  They  may  control  the  State’s  lawmaking 
processes  in  the  first  instance,  as  Arizona  voters  have 
done,  and  they  may  seek  Congress’  correction  of  regula­
tions prescribed by state legislatures.

The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the 
practice  of  gerrymandering  and,  thereby,  to  ensure  that 
Members of Congress would have “an habitual recollection
of their dependence on the people.”  The Federalist No. 57, 
at 350 (J. Madison).  In so acting, Arizona voters sought to
restore  “the  core  principle  of  republican  government,”
namely,  “that  the  voters  should  choose  their  representa­
tives,  not  the  other  way  around.”    Berman,  Managing 
Gerrymandering,  83  Texas  L. Rev.  781  (2005).    The  Elec­
tions Clause does not hinder that endeavor. 

For  the  reasons  stated,  the  judgment  of  the  United 

States District Court for the District of Arizona is 

Affirmed.