I do not think that word means what you think it means
It's not enough for Republicans in Arizona that they control every branch of government: the governorship; attorney general, secretary of state, and every other statewide office; both chambers of the legislature by wide margins; both U.S. Senate seats and a 5-4 majority in the House; and so on down the line. No, that's not enough: they want it all, in perpetuity, with no chance that Democrats will
ever make gains.
One occasion that gave small "d" democrats slight hope was Arizona voters' approval of Proposition 106 in 2000. The amendment to the state's constitution established an independent and bipartisan redistricting commission that removed the every-ten-year responsibility from the legislature, which historically gerrymandered districts to guarantee continuing GOP domination. The new process worked as designed and, after many public meetings, the districts were redrawn in 2010 along commonsense lines, rather than with partisan objectives in mind, resulting in more legislative and congressional races that were actually deemed competitive.
Well, said the Arizona GOP, we can't be having that! So they tried to oust the commission's chair, and failed; they appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and were rejected; they took their case to district court, and lost; they went public but were even slammed by the state's conservative media for trying to usurp the will of the people. So next: the Supremes of course.
Oral arguments were held today at the Court, and while it's difficult to read anything into a hearing, according to SCOTUS.blog, it did not go well for citizen referenda that challenge the status quo, especially when the initiative promotes democratic rule, the kind Bill Moyers encouraged today.
At issue was the definition of "legislature," which, in the U.S. Constitution, is granted the authority to determine the "manner of holding elections," and that, presumably, includes drawing district boundaries. SCOTUS.blog's report suggests most justices rejected the commission's interpretation that "legislature" can also mean a body created by citizens but still responsible to the state legislature, since its members determine the commission's makeup. Justice Sotomayor made this point when she suggested "‘Legislature’ means legislative power," and that was also the finding of the lower court:
“The elections clause does not prohibit a state from vesting the power to conduct congressional redistricting elsewhere within its legislative powers."
The plaintiff's lawyer, on the other hand, argued that "legislature," and therefore the authority to redistrict, can only apply to the elected officials themselves:
Over and over again, the Arizona legislature’s lawyer in the Court on Monday, Washington attorney Paul D. Clement, insisted that “legislature” in constitutional terms has “a certain meaning”: it can only mean a “representative body” that writes a state’s laws. So, he argued, it is unconstitutional for the people of a state to hand off congressional redistricting to “an unelected and unaccountable” state commission.
This could get interesting, since Arizona's redistricting commission isn't the only legislative responsibility entrusted to unelected officials; nor is it the only citizen-approved ballot measure affecting elections (voter ID laws). Still, according to SCOTUS.blog, the broader interpretation of "legislature" found few champions on the bench.
First they go after Arizona's public financing of campaigns, now this—assaults on anything that promotes the people's voice and levels the playing field.
Oh. Shit.