Arizona Proposition 106, Redistricting Commission Amendment (2000)
| Arizona Proposition 106 | |
|---|---|
| |
| Election date | |
| Topic Administration of government andRedistricting policy | |
| Status
| |
| Type Initiated constitutional amendment | Origin |
Arizona Proposition 106 was on theballot as aninitiated constitutional amendment inArizona onNovember 7, 2000. It wasapproved.
A"yes" votesupported creating a five-member Citizens' Independent Redistricting Commission to draw legislative and congressional district boundaries and removing redistricting authority from the legislature. |
A"no" voteopposed creating a five-member Citizens' Independent Redistricting Commission to draw legislative and congressional district boundaries and removing redistricting authority from the legislature. |
Election results
Arizona Proposition 106 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| 784,272 | 56.14% | ||
| No | 612,686 | 43.86% | ||
- Results are officially certified.
- Source
Aftermath
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
On June 29, 2015, theUnited States Supreme Court issued a ruling inArizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The five-to-four decision upheld the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission as constitutional.[1]
TheArizona Legislature objected to Proposition 106, arguing that the state's independent redistricting commissions violatedSection 4 of Article I of theUnited States Constitution.[2] The legislature claimed that the commission violated the following segment of Section 4: "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 chusing Senators."
U.S. District Court
On February 22, 2014, theU.S. District Court for Arizona, in a two-to-one decision, ruled that the state's independent redistricting commission does not violate the federal constitution. The district court's ruling held thatLegislature in Section 4 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution refers to the lawmaking process of the state and not legislators specifically.[2]
U.S. Supreme Court
TheUnited States Supreme Court ruled in support of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission on June 29, 2015.[1]
The question presented to the court was:[2]
| “ | Does the provision of the Arizona Constitution that divests the Arizona Legislature of any authority to prescribe congressional district lines violate the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires that the time, place, and manner of congressional elections be prescribed in each state by the “Legislature thereof”?[3] | ” |
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the court. Her concluding remark was:
| “ | The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” The Federalist No. 57, at 350 (J. Madison). In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,” namely, “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.” Berman, Managing Gerrymandering, 83 Texas L. Rev. 781 (2005). The Elections Clause does not hinder that endeavor.[3] | ” |
| —Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg[1] | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 106 was as follows:
| “ | PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE IV, PART 2, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO ENDING THE PRACTICE OF GERRYMANDERING AND IMPROVING VOTER AND CANDIDATE PARTICIPATION IN ELECTIONS BY CREATING AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF BALANCED APPOINTMENTS TO OVERSEE THE MAPPING OF FAIR AND COMPETITIVE CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRCITS. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | AMENDING ARIZONA CONSTITUTION TO CREATE A 5-MEMBER "CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION", WITH NO MORE THAN 2 MEMBERS FROM EACH POLITICAL PARTY AND NO MORE THAN 3 MEMBERS FROM EACH COUNTY, TO DRAW LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AFTER EACH U.S. CENSUS; REMOVES REDISTRICTING AUTHORITY FROM THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is availablehere.
Path to the ballot
In Arizona, thenumber of signatures required for aninitiated constitutional amendment is equal to 15 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑1.01.11.2Supreme Court of the United States, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑2.02.12.2Supreme Court of the United States, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," accessed October 4, 2014
- ↑3.03.1Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 | State ofArizona Phoenix (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections | What's on my ballot? |Elections in 2026 |How to vote |How to run for office |Ballot measures |
| Government | Who represents me? |U.S. President |U.S. Congress |Federal courts |State executives |State legislature |State and local courts |Counties |Cities |School districts |Public policy |
- Arizona 2000 ballot measures
- State ballots, 2000
- State Ballot Measure, November 7, 2000
- Approved, 2000
- Approved, November 7, 2000
- Arizona 2000 ballot measures, certified
- Administration of government, Arizona
- Administration of government, 2000
- Certified, administration of government, 2000
- Redistricting policy, Arizona
- Redistricting policy, 2000
- Certified, redistricting policy, 2000
- Initiated amendment certified for the 2000 ballot
- Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
