Reader Matthew Estrin sends this comment on the Arizona State Legislature case (the question being, does Article I, Section 4 – which says the "Times, Places and Manner" of elections for the U.S. House of Representative shall be "prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof" — allow districts to be drawn by a independent commission):
I know that the case as well as the discussion has all been about the meaning of "Legislature" but I was thinking the proper focus should be on the meaning of "State." In requiring that we have a republican form of government, the founders didn't just distinguish our government from a monarchy and aristocracy; they also distinguished us from the ancient Athenian direct democracy. To be sure, we have direct democracy avenues (e.g. referendums) but at our heart there is a separation between the government as an institution, the State, and the people, even if the people hold the power through elections.
This can further be seen in the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There is a distinction between the States and the people. They are not one in the same.
This, to me, shows a strong indication that in giving the power to the State that itself distinguished the government from the people. Legislature, therefore, was only really meant to distinguish between the branches of government.
I know there may be some textual arguments against this. Namely that by saying "…in each State" instead of "…by each State" that evidences the use of state in a geographical sense. But I'm not completely convinced that the founders were that particular in phrasing the Constitution, or that it wasn't one of style to avoid saying "…by each State, by the Legislature thereof" which is kind of clunky.
Posted at 10:30 AM