Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

claim  asserted,”  but  it  “in  no  way  depends  on  the  merits” 
of the claim). 

The AIRC argues that the Legislature’s alleged injury is
insufficiently  concrete  to  meet  the  standing  requirement 
absent some “specific legislative act that would have taken
effect but for Proposition 106.”  Brief for Appellees 20.  The 
United  States,  as  amicus  curiae,  urges  that  even  more  is
needed:  the  Legislature’s  injury  will  remain  speculative,
the  United  States  contends,  unless  and  until  the  Arizona 
Secretary of State refuses to implement a competing redis­
tricting  plan  passed  by  the  Legislature.    Brief  for  United 
States 14–17.  In our view, the Arizona Legislature’s suit
is not premature, nor is its alleged injury too “conjectural”
or “hypothetical” to establish standing.  Defenders of Wild-
life, 504 U. S., at 560 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Two  prescriptions  of  Arizona’s  Constitution  would  ren­
der  the  Legislature’s  passage  of  a  competing  plan  and 
submission of that plan to the Secretary of State unavail­
ing.  Indeed, those actions would directly and immediately 
conflict with the regime Arizona’s Constitution establishes. 
Cf.  Sporhase  v.  Nebraska  ex  rel.  Douglas,  458  U. S. 
941,  944,  n. 2  (1982)  (failure  to  apply  for  permit  which
“would not have been granted” under existing law did not 
deprive  plaintiffs  of  standing  to  challenge  permitting
regime).  First, the Arizona Constitution instructs that the 
Legislature “shall not have the power to adopt any meas­
ure that supersedes [an initiative], in whole or in part, . . . 
unless the superseding measure furthers the purposes” of 
the initiative.  Art. IV, pt. 1, §1(14).  Any redistricting map 
passed  by  the  Legislature  in  an  effort  to  supersede  the 
AIRC’s  map  surely  would  not  “furthe[r]  the  purposes”  of
Proposition 106.  Second, once the AIRC certifies its redis­
tricting plan to the Secretary of State, Arizona’s Constitu­
tion requires the Secretary to implement that plan and no
other.  See  Art.  IV,  pt.  2,  §1(17);  Arizona  Minority  Coali-
tion  for  Fair  Redistricting  v.  Arizona  Independent  Redis-