Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the state legislature had standing to challenge redistricting and cautioning that courts must not conflate the potential weakness of a claim on the merits with an absence of Article III standing
• concluding that the Arizona Legislature had standing when the disputed proposition and the state constitution “would ‘nullif[y]’ any vote by the Legislature, now or ‘in the future,’ purporting to adopt a redistricting plan’ ”
• noting that “one must not confuse weakness on the merits with absence of Article III standing” (quotation and alteration omitted)
• concluding the1 Federal Elections Clause permits redistricting by the state legislature, Congress, or an independent redistricting commission
• concluding the1 Federal Elections Clause permits redistricting by the state legislature, Congress, or an independent redistricting commission
• concluding the1 Federal Elections Clause permits redistricting by the state legislature, Congress, or an independent redistricting commission

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).