Rick HasenVerified account

Yes, their argument is remarkably self-refuting.

Not at all. The Supreme Court has interpreted "legislature" to mean legislative power/process as defined by state constitution. It has held that a governor's veto, which the legislature may override, is part of the legislative process (Smiley v Holm).

That's why President's veto power is in Art I; it's seen as a step in the legislative process. Judicial review, in contrast, typically isn't seen as a step in the legislative process; the court isn't seen as performing a legislative function (as Gov does in signing/vetoing bill)

And unlike a veto, the court's ruling isn't subject to legislative override. Even Arizona Indep Redistricting Commission's bizarre definition of legislature is confined to quintessentially legislative power/activities, and not just anything anyone happens to do under state law

One important point: this isn't just some desperate creative new argument the republicans cooked up. The independent state legislature doctrine has a long pedigree and has been accepted by several courts, commentators, the US House, a US Senate committee, and SCOTUS (maybe dicta

Sure, and I do think I tweeted too quickly. But what's the argument that a court interpreting the state constitution is different for these purposes from a state constitutionally authorized redistricting commission?

1. Drawing a congressional map is establishing rules to regulate the "manner" in which federal elections will be conducted, a legislative function the Elections Clause confers exclusively upon legislatures.

2. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n (wrongly, in my view) says any entity empowered under state law to perform that function is exercising legislative power and qualifies as a legislature under the Elections Clause