Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 43

4 

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA 

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

“processes”  violate  the  United  States  Constitution.  In  a 
conflict  between  the  Arizona  Constitution  and  the  Elec-
tions  Clause,  the  State  Constitution  must  give  way. 
Art. VI,  cl.  2;  Cook  v.  Gralike,  531  U. S.  510,  523  (2001).
The majority opinion therefore largely misses the point. 

The relevant question in this case is how to define “the
Legislature”  under  the  Elections  Clause.    The  majority
opinion does not seriously turn to that question until page
24,  and  even  then  it  fails  to  provide  a  coherent  answer.
The  Court  seems  to  conclude,  based  largely  on  its  under-
standing  of  the  “history  and  purpose”  of  the  Elections
Clause,  ante,  at  24,  that  “the  Legislature”  encompasses
any  entity  in  a  State  that  exercises  legislative  power.
That  circular  definition  lacks  any  basis  in  the  text  of  the 
Constitution or any other relevant legal source.

The  majority’s  textual  analysis  consists,  in  its  entirety,
of  one  paragraph  citing  founding  era  dictionaries.    The 
majority points to various dictionaries that follow Samuel 
Johnson’s  definition  of  “legislature”  as  the  “power  that 
makes  laws.”  Ibid.  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).
The  notion  that  this  definition  corresponds  to  the  entire
population of a State is strained to begin with, and largely
discredited  by  the  majority’s  own  admission  that  “[d]irect
lawmaking by the people was virtually unknown when the 
Constitution  of  1787  was  drafted.”    Ante,  at  3  (internal 
quotation  marks  omitted);  see  ante,  at  27.  Moreover,  Dr. 
Johnson’s first example of the usage of “legislature” is this: 
“Without  the  concurrent  consent  of  all  three  parts  of  the
legislature,  no  law  is  or  can  be  made.”    2  A  Dictionary  of
the  English  Language  (1st  ed.  1755)  (emphasis  deleted). 
Johnson borrowed that sentence from Matthew Hale, who 
defined the “Three Parts of the Legislature” of England as 
the King and the two houses of Parliament.  History of the 
Common  Law  of  England  2  (1713).  (The  contrary  notion 
that the people as a whole make the laws would have cost
you your head in England in 1713.)  Thus, even under the