Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n (13-1314)

argument 13-1314

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central constitutional issue in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 13.13.14, the Arizona State Legislature versus the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Mr. Clement.

Paul D. Clement 0:10

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Proposition 106 permanently divests the State Legislature of its authority to prescribe congressional districts and re-delegates that authority to an unelected and unaccountable commission. The Elections Clause of the Constitution clearly vests that authority not just in the States, but in the legislatures thereof. Thus, this avowed effort to re-delegate that authority to an unelected and unaccountable commission is plainly repugnant to the Constitution's vesting of that authority in the legislatures of the States.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 0:45

But it's all right for the State redistricting. The commission is, there's no constitutional question with Arizona being able to use this commission for its state representation.

Paul D. Clement 0:59

Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg. It only applies to the Congressional — our argument only applies to the Congressional redistricting. And, of course, that means that if these commissions are as effective, as my friends on the other side say, then we will have nonpartisan districts that will elect the State Houses, the State Representatives, and the State Senate, and then those nonpartisanly gerrymandered, perfectly representative bodies will be the ones that take care of Congressional districting.

Elena Kagan 1:27

Mr. Clement — JUST WANT TO CLARIFY YOUR POSITION. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE LACK OF LEGISLATIVE CONTROL IS AT ISSUE ONLY OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO OVERTURN HILDEBRANDT AND SMILEY?

Paul D. Clement 1:42

MR. OH, YOU CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO OVERTURN HILDEBRANDT AND SMILEY. WE ACTUALLY THINK THAT THOSE DECISIONS CUT IN OUR FAVOR. BECAUSE WHAT THOSE DECISIONS STAND FOR IS SMILEY IN PARTICULAR, I MEAN, THE COURT WAS EMPHATIC THAT THE LEGISLATURE was a term of certain meaning at the Constitution, at the framing of the Constitution, that it means then what it means now, which is a representative body of the people.

Elena Kagan 2:03

That's sort of hard to understand because we made it very clear in Smiley and in Hillebrand that we're defining legislature in this clause as meaning legislative process.

Paul D. Clement 2:16

With all due respect, I disagree. This Court heard the argument in the briefs in Smiley, and one side was saying just that. The one side was saying, oh, legislature just means the legislative process in the State, whatever that is. The other side said, no, it means the representative body of the people. And this Court said, well, actually, we don't have to decide that dispute, but we certainly agree that it means the representative body of the people, just as we said five years earlier in the Hawk case. So what the Court said is, first, the delegee is clearly the legislature, the representative body of the people. But that brings you then to the second question, which is what kind of authority is delegated to the State legislatures?

Paul D. Clement 2:57

And the authority that's granted under the Elections Clause is a lawmaking authority. So that means that the State legislature has to engage in lawmaking subject

Elena Kagan 3:07

to the normal rules. But this makes no sense to me, because I think it's an either-or. If the legislature has the power, how can the governor veto it? How can a popular referendum veto it? Either they have the power or they don't.

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:22

And if the State

Elena Kagan 3:23

Constitution says that the people hold the power and they can choose a commission or however else they want to do it, isn't that the legislative process?

Paul D. Clement 3:33

No, it's not. But, I mean, I disagree with you, Justice Sotomayor, but that's not particularly important. I actually think the Court in Smiley disagrees with that way of thinking about it. What they say is that the delegee remains the same. Here, as in Hawk, it is the State Legislature, the representative body. They say the function differs. So when the State Legislature is told that it can elect somebody or ratify something, then there's no partial agency of anybody else in that process. But when they're told to prescribe rules — The Court says that's a delegation of lawmaking authority.