[EL] Most surprising remark in today's oral argument in the Arizona redistricting case

[Scarberry, Mark]

My point is that the interpretation given in Hawke to "legislature" for purposes of Article V would seem to be wrong (and thus Hawke would have been wrongly decided) if Waxman's *consensus* argument is right (or decisive).

Mark Scarberry

From: Levinson, Sanford V [mailto:SLevinson at law.utexas.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:33 AM
To: Scarberry, Mark
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Most surprising remark in today's oral argument in the Arizona redistricting case

So are we back to looking for the one true meaning of "legislature"?  As Eric Nelson has recently demonstrated, defenders of the presidential veto power described him as the third house of the legislature.

Sandy

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Scarberry, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>> wrote:
An insurmountable problem with Waxman's argument (unless a prior case - Hawke? - is overruled) is that legislature for purposes of ratification of constitutional amendments does not mean the regular lawmaking process. A governor's attempt to veto a legislature's decision to ratify is a nullity, even though (if I recall correctly) a state constitution allows the governor to veto bills passed by the legislature. If Waxman's "consensus view" argument is correct, then Hawke is wrong. A question in Bush v. Gore was whether legislature in Article II should be interpreted to mean something different from its meaning in Article V. But isn't there another case (I haven't looked at this in a while and haven't read the briefs or the transcripts), I believe Smiley v. Holm (?), that allowed the governor to have a role in the provision at issue here? So the question, if I understand it correctly, is not whether  general lawmaking process that includes the legislature is permissible, but whether a process that completely cuts out the legislature (that is, the constitutionally mandated representative legislative body or bodies) is permissible.

Again, it's been several years since I've read Hawke and Smiley, and I've read neither the briefs nor the transcript in this redistricting case. (McPherson is not on point here, though it was important in Bush v. Gore.)

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law



From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:04 AM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>; Election Law
Subject: [EL] Most surprising remark in today's oral argument in the Arizona redistricting case

SETH WAXMAN:  The meaning of the word "legislature" that we advocate ["the power that makes laws," which Waxman derived from Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of English Language (10th ed. 1792) and Noah Webster's Compendious Dictionary of the English Language (1806)] . . . was, in fact, the consensus definition of "legislature."

JUSTICE SCALIA:  . . . . I don't think it was a consensus definition at all.  You've plucked that out of a couple of dictionaries.

[I was present in the Courtroom and can attest that the last sentence was uttered with derision.  I probably was not the only one who was somewhat alarmed to hear that, given the source.]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150302/4537555b/attachment.html>