SCOTUS ruling has broader impact than just redistricting
Ruling impacts elections administration in two key ways

By Edward B. Foley, Director, Election Law @ Moritz
Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law, Moritz College of Law

What does this week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Arizona redistricting case mean for the world of election administration?

We know it gives a green light to the use of ballot referenda and initiatives to create the kind of nonpartisan redistricting commission that Arizona and California have, and that is potentially a huge development in the world of redistricting itself.

We know, too, that the jurisprudential debate between Justice Ruth Ginsburg opinion for the Court’s five-member majority (including the all-important swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy) and Chief Justice John Roberts for the four dissenters has the potential for overarching theoretical significance concerning the nature of appropriate judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution — as I’ve already touched on elsewhere.

But in terms of the rules and institutions for administering the voting process itself, is this week’s decision of particular significance?

Yes. For two reasons. Read More…