Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

16 

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA 

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

The  majority  draws  attention  to  the  minority  report  in 
Baldwin.  Ante, at 29.  Under the present circumstances, I
take  some  comfort  in  the  Court’s  willingness  to  consider 
dissenting  views.  Still,  the  minority  report  does  not  di-
minish the force of Baldwin.  The report cites a Michigan 
Supreme  Court  precedent  that  allegedly  reached  a  con-
trary result, but that case turned entirely on state constitu- 
tional questions arising from a state election—not federal 
constitutional  questions  arising  from  a  federal  election. 
See  People  ex rel.  Twitchell  v.  Blodgett,  13  Mich.  127 
(1865).  The majority also contends that Baldwin “appears
in  tension  with”  an  earlier  House  Elections  Committee 
precedent.  Ante,  at  29.    By  its  own  terms,  however,  that 
earlier precedent did not involve a conflict between a state
legislative  act  and  a  state  constitutional  provision.    See 
Shiel v. Thayer, 1 Bartlett Contested Election Cases, H. R. 
Misc.  Doc.  No.  57,  38th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  350  (1861)  (“the 
two branches of the legislature differed upon the question 
. . . and so the bill never became a law”).  In any event, to
the  degree  that  the  two  precedents  are  inconsistent,  the
later decision in Baldwin should govern.3 

The  next  relevant  precedent  is  this  Court’s  decision  in 
McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U. S.  1  (1892).    That  case  in-
volved  a  constitutional  provision  with  considerable  simi-
larity  to  the  Elections  Clause,  the  Presidential  Electors 
Clause  of  Article  II:  “Each  State  shall  appoint,  in  such
Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of 
Electors  . . . .”    §1,  cl. 2  (emphasis  added).  The  question
was whether the state legislature, as a body of representa-
tives,  could  divide  authority  to  appoint  electors  across
each  of  the  State’s  congressional  districts.    The  Court 

—————— 

3 The  majority’s  suggestion  that  Baldwin  should  be  dismissed  as  an 
act  of  partisanship  appears  to  have  no  basis,  unless  one  is  willing  to 
regard as tainted every decision in favor of a candidate from the same
party as a majority of the Elections Committee.  Ante, at 29–30.