U.S. Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA 47th District) has spearheaded an effort— garnering the support of 19 other members of Congress— to submit a bipartisan Congressional amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) supporting the right of citizens to determine how federal elections are conducted in their individual states and defending the Constitutional authority of the federal government to make or alter regulations related to the “time, place, and manner” of Congressional elections.
The amicus brief, filed Jan. 23 in support of the Arizona Redistricting Commission in the SCOTUS case of Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, was co-signed by 10 other Congressional Democrats and nine Congressional Republicans representing districts across the nation from California to New York and from Washington to Florida.
“I led the effort with my colleagues— including invaluable help from across the aisle from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher— to bring this amicus brief to the Supreme Court because of the critical importance of this case,” Lowenthal said. “The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision will affect not only the citizens of California, but every person in this nation.”
The Arizona case involves a referendum passed by voters in Arizona which set up an independent redistricting commission to take redrawing of congressional districts out of the hands the Arizona legislature, in an effort to make the redistricting process non-partisan and to combat gerrymandering.
Between Arizona’s creation as a state in 1912, until 2000, the state constitution vested the authority to draw the lines of congressional districts to the state legislature, with the governor having veto power. In 2000, Arizona voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that placed the district-drawing power in the hands of an independent, five-member body.
In 2012, after the independent commission carried out its duty for the second time following the 2010 Census, the Arizona state legislature sued, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause explicitly and exclusively provides the power of setting election laws to the individual state legislatures, unless Congress weighs in.
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, known as the Elections Clause, reads “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.”
“If the court views the Constitution’s Elections Clause to prohibit the use of referenda, even after Congress has affirmed the use of referenda to redistrict, all voter-initiated election reform laws may be invalidated,” Lowenthal said. “For us in California, that would mean, among other things, the end of our hard-fought Citizens Redistricting Commission and putting the map-drawing back into the hands of self-interested politicians.”
In supporting the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the amicus brief makes these arguments:
• Congress has broad and express Constitutional authority to regulate the time, place and manner of congressional elections.
• For more than 170 years, Congress has done so in a way that supports the people of Arizona to form a redistricting commission.
• Congress has in fact weighed in and has said in federal statute that states’ redistricting can be done by more than the State Legislature proper.
• The use of an independent commission for districting is consistent with, and supports, core principles of federalism reflected in the Constitution and the Elections Clause itself, which seek to ensure a direct link between national representatives and the people.
• The use of an independent commission is an important, democracy-promoting development that will help reduce negative effects of severe partisan gerrymandering.
“Districts drawn by incumbents to protect their jobs makes politicians less accountable to their constituents and more accountable to the special interests, which has eroded public trust and contributed to a deep and intractable dysfunction in Congress,” said Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA 26th District). “In California, we have experienced firsthand that a non-partisan, citizen-driven redistricting process is not only possible, but that its success makes it imperative for other states to follow our lead to ensure that our government is ‘of the people, for the people, by the people.’ The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission could have far reaching consequences, undermining state laws in California, and in other states, that have adopted citizen redistricting commissions to eliminate partisan gerrymandering.”
Source: Lowenthal’s office
