The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments that it’s unconstitutional for a state to isolate its legislature from the redistricting process, citing the federal constitution’s Election Clause. And if the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could upend political districts and election laws from coast to coast before 2016.

Hundreds of congressional districts might have to be redrawn before the next election — and several other election laws could be at stake — depending on how broadly the high court rules in a much anticipated case brought by the GOP-controlled Arizona Legislature against the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission. The Legislature is claiming that the Constitution — which states that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof” — prohibits voters from taking the redistricting process out of the political arena.


But the case could do more than just dismantle the independent redistricting commissions that good-government groups have been championing for decades — it could invalidate some state election laws such as those related to voter identification, regulation of primaries and residency requirements passed through ballot initiatives.

“The stakes are actually pretty ginormous,” said Justin Levitt, a redistricting expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Arizona’s commission. “This case only looks like a redistricting case if you aren’t paying attention. … But it’s really about who makes the rules for elections. It will have an affect far beyond Arizona and far beyond redistricting.”

Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission was created when voters in 2000 passed Proposition 106, an amendment to the state constitution that gives the responsibility of drawing congressional lines to an independent, five-member body. Four of those members are chosen by legislative leaders from a list prepared by another state agency, and the fifth member — the chairman — is selected from the same list by the other members.

The Arizona Legislature believes that its lack of power to modify or reject the maps produced by the commission violates the Election Clause. “Arizona’s use of the [Independent Redistricting Commission] to adopt congressional districts cannot stand,” the Legislature says in its brief submitted to the court. “By design, the Legislature has been completely divested of all authority to prescribe congressional districts; that power has wholly been transferred to the IRC, which is not and cannot claim to be the state legislature.”

While it’s Republicans from the Grand Canyon State who are suing — the map the commission drew in 2011 led to Democrats winning five of the state’s nine House seats in 2012 — support for redistricting reform is fairly bipartisan. Then-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger championed the issue during his time in Sacramento, and nine of the 20 members of Congress who’ve filed briefs supporting the commission are Republicans. (The members of Congress argue that the Arizona Legislature is advancing “a cramped and ahistorical interpretation of the Election Clause.”)

California is the only other state that has an independent commission set up through ballot initiative. But five other states — Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey and Washington — that draw their lines through commissions with some involvement from legislatures could also be affected. In fact, advocates of nonpartisan redistricting fear even the maps that have had to be drawn by the courts — like New York’s, after the Legislature failed to produce a map by early 2012 — could be thrown out.

Jeanne Raya, vice-chairwoman of California’s commission, said there’s a lot of concern in the state that the court’s decision will “undo what was clearly done by the people of California in creation of a commission that is fair and transparent.”

“We’re all watching this carefully and just looking forward to Monday,” Raya said last week. “I don’t know how strictly the court will read the meaning of ‘legislature.’ Are they going to recognize that in a democratic society, it’s the people who have the power?”

In a brief signed along with two other former California governors, Schwarzenegger added: “The historical record regarding the Elections Clause confirms that the Clause does not limit the legislative means by which congressional districts may be drawn, and that the Clause accordingly permits the people of a State to delegate that power to an independent commission.”

But the National Conference of State Legislatures — which filed a brief supporting the Arizona Legislature’s case — believes the case is being viewed too broadly by the other side, distracting from the redistricting issue at hand. Invalidating Arizona’s commission won’t necessarily mean the court will throw out election laws across the country, NCSL says.

“People have really taken this case and run with it,” said Susan Frederick, senior federal affairs counsel for the NCSL. “It’s a pretty straightforward case from where we sit. We’ll have to see how the Supreme Court chooses to interpret it.”

Frederick said redistricting reform advocates have turned the case into more than it is. “If the sky falls down, what will happen?” she said of their reaction.

“I’m not a Supreme Court guru,” she acknowledged. “But I do know that the Supreme Court isn’t prone to these broad stroke rulings. They usually go for the most narrow ruling.”

The case is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.