Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

rected  that  when  a  State  has  been  “redistricted  in  the 
manner  provided  by  [state]  law”—whether  by  the  legisla­
ture, court decree (see id., at 274), or a commission estab­
lished by the people’s exercise of the initiative—the result­
ing districts are the ones that presumptively will be used 
to elect Representatives.22 

There can be no dispute that Congress itself may draw a
State’s  congressional-district  boundaries.    See  Vieth,  541 
U. S., at 275 (plurality opinion) (stating that the Elections 
Clause  “permit[s]  Congress  to  ‘make  or  alter’ ”  the  “dis­
tricts  for  federal  elections”).    The  Arizona  Legislature
urges  that  the  first  part  of  the  Elections  Clause,  vesting 
power  to  regulate  congressional  elections  in  State  “Legis­
lature[s],”  precludes  Congress  from  allowing  a  State  to 
redistrict  without  the  involvement  of  its  representative
body, even if Congress independently could enact the same
redistricting plan under its plenary authority to “make or
alter”  the  State’s  plan.    See  Brief  for  Appellant  56–57;
Reply  Brief  17.  In  other  words,  the  Arizona  Legislature 
regards  §2a(c)  as  a  futile  exercise.    The  Congresses  that
passed  §2a(c)  and  its  forerunner,  the  1911  Act,  did  not 
share that wooden interpretation of the Clause, nor do we. 
Any  uncertainty  about  the  import  of  §2a(c),  however,  is
resolved by our holding that the Elections Clause permits
regulation  of  congressional  elections  by  initiative,  see 
infra,  at  24–35,  leaving  no  arguable  conflict  between
§2a(c) and the first part of the Clause. 

—————— 

ered the question whether §2a(c) had been repealed by implication and
stated,  “where  what  it  prescribes  is  constitutional,”  the  provision 
“continues to apply.” 

22 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in dissent, insists that §2a(c) and its precursor,
the  1911  Act,  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  case.    Post,  at  20–21,  23. 
Undeniably,  however,  it  was  the  very  purpose  of  the  measures  to
recognize the legislative authority each State has to determine its own 
redistricting regime.