Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20 

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA 
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMM’N
 
Opinion of the Court 

quired  to  follow  federally  prescribed  procedures  for  redis­
tricting  unless  “the  legislature”  of  the  State  drew  district
lines.  E.g., Act of July 14, 1862, ch. 170, 12 Stat. 572; Act 
of Jan. 16, 1901, ch. 93, §4, 31 Stat. 734.  In drafting the 
1911 Act, Congress focused on the fact that several States
had  supplemented  the  representative  legislature  mode  of
lawmaking  with  a  direct  lawmaking  role  for  the  people, 
through  the  processes  of  initiative  (positive  legislation  by 
the electorate) and referendum (approval or disapproval of
legislation  by  the  electorate).    47  Cong.  Rec.  3508  (state­
ment of Sen. Burton); see supra, at 3–5.  To accommodate 
that  development,  the  1911  Act  eliminated  the  statutory 
reference  to  redistricting  by  the  state  “legislature”  and
instead directed that, if a State’s apportionment of Repre­
sentatives  increased,  the  State  should  use  the  Act’s  de­
fault procedures for redistricting “until such State shall be 
redistricted  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  laws  thereof.” 
Ch. 5, §4, 37 Stat. 14 (emphasis added).19 

Some  Members  of  Congress  questioned  whether  the
language  change  was  needed. 
In  their  view,  existing
apportionment  legislation  (referring  to  redistricting  by  a 
State’s “legislature”) “suffic[ed] to allow, whatever the law 
of  the  State  may  be,  the  people  of  that  State  to  control 
[redistricting].”    47  Cong.  Rec.  3507  (statement  of  Sen. 

—————— 

19 The 1911 Act also required States to comply with certain federally 
prescribed  districting  rules—namely,  that  Representatives  be  elected
“by  districts  composed  of  a  contiguous  and  compact  territory,  and 
containing  as  nearly  as  practicable  an  equal  number  of  inhabitants,”
and  that  the  districts  “be  equal  to  the  number  of  Representatives  to
which [the] State may be entitled in Congress, no district electing more 
than one Representative.”  Act of Aug. 8, 1911, ch. 5, §§3–4, 37 Stat. 14.
When  a  State’s  apportionment  of  Representatives  remained  constant, 
the  Act  directed  the  State  to  continue  using  its  pre-existing  districts 
“until  [the]  State  shall  be  redistricted  as  herein  prescribed.”    See  §4, 
ibid.  The 1911 Act did not address redistricting in the event a State’s 
apportionment  of  Representatives  decreased,  likely  because  no  State
faced a decrease following the 1910 census.