Will the Supreme Court strike down (some) independent redistricting commissions?

[Skill and Chance]

Roberts might go for it, but not at all convinced Kavanaugh wants to overrule his mentor on this.  Also, Gorsuch could plausibly be swayed by some arcane technical/historical argument and has proven more moderate than Scalia thus far.  Also, this isn't exactly an obvious pro-Republican ruling anymore.  If redistricting must be done  by the legislature, there would be no Republicans representing CA or NY after 2022.  In TX, the statewide margins are now too narrow to wipe out Democrats and not lose everything in a bad R year, even if SCOTUS also ruled that VRA doesn't apply to redistricting at all*. 

The obvious solution for reformers is for Congress to impose 50 independent redistricting commissions, which it unambiguously has the authority to do.

*I'd worry more about this for the 2020's.

[Skill and Chance]

The obvious solution for reformers is for Congress to impose 50 independent redistricting commissions, which it unambiguously has the authority to do.

This is imo a really good idea for congressional elections, but I'm assuming it wouldn't apply to state legislative elections?

Right, but if this case is reversed, commissions passed by referendum would stick for state legislatures.  This clause of the Constitution is specifically about federal elections, meaning only congressional redistricting powers are at risk.  In a sweeping ruling, it is also possible that other changes to election law by referendum, like Florida's re-enfranchisement of felons this year, or Maine's IRV, would only apply to state-level elections because the legislature didn't pass them. 

[Skill and Chance]

On this note, I would also be a bit concerned that SCOTUS could overturn Smiley v. Holm, which established that governors could veto redistricting plans.  There probably needs to be at least one more Republican appointee on SCOTUS for that, though.

[Skill and Chance]

Yes, and no. 

The objection in Arizona was not to redistricting commissions.  It was that the commission would have had to be established by the legislature, not by referendum. I think that could go, but a commissioned established by the legislature, even one whose members are chosen directly by the electorate, would remain.

That would be the equivalent of striking them down, since a gerrymandered legislature would never accept a redistricting commission against its own interests.

No, if the electorate makes redistricting the prime issue in state elections.  The voters can vote out anyone opposing a redistricting commission. Now, if the voters decide they don't want a commission, they can vote for candidates that oppose it. 

 
 

As it's a federal election, Congress could also preempt this by imposing commissions nationwide through the normal legislative process.  This strikes me as highly likely if Democrats control the federal government in 2021. 

[Skill and Chance]

As it's a federal election, Congress could also preempt this by imposing commissions nationwide through the normal legislative process.  This strikes me as highly likely if Democrats control the federal government in 2021. 

What about state legislative districts being gerrymandered? I don't think Congress could do anything about that. But I have another suggestion: adopt a constitutional amendment that requires all of the states to use independent redistricting commissions for both congressional districts and state legislative districts. In my signature I talk about rewriting the 14th Amendment to make its meaning narrower and clearer. I have drafted exactly how I think the rewrite should read, and I included a provision for redistricting commissions. Here is how my proposal is currently worded: "States shall adopt redistricting processes to assure that congressional, state, and local legislative districts will not be 'gerrymandered.' Iowa’s Legislative Services Bureau is one example of a permissible redistricting process, or states may adopt independent redistricting commissions; using algorithms is encouraged, but the power to draw districts must be taken away from each state legislature."

My proposal, more broadly, deals with the vague language in the second sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. I drafted a rewrite to make the rules that states have to obey more precise, clearer, and narrower. In my draft, I enumerate which "rights" the states cannot violate, and I make clear that the Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not the states. And I enumerate the kinds of discrimination that states cannot engage in. I continue to protect the equal right of all citizens to vote according to all precedents (except for Bush v. Gore decided thus far.

In order to get over the hurdle of our current nation's polarization and intense partisanship, I decided to include elements in the proposal that will appeal to both sides. That is, some elements will be appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals, while other elements will have the opposite effect. Therefore there are things in it for both sides to root for, and both sides can accept it as a compromise.

My understanding is the constitutional language at issue in the Arizona case where Roberts wrote the 4 Justice dissent applies only to federal elections.  So state legislative redistricting commissions should be just fine constitutionally, even when they are created by referendum.  That may be the best hope to limit gerrymandering going forward, as a federal redistricting standard could invite gaming/modification every time control of the government flips.  Hopefully there would be a feedback loop where they feel the need to restrain themselves on congressional gerrymandering for fear of angering the commissioners or voters in state legislative districts they still have no control over.