Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
E439598
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of using an independent commission, rather than the state legislature, to draw congressional district boundaries.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4428537 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Context triple: [Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, citedInCase, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission]
-
A.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee is a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the scope of federal protections against voting discrimination, particularly under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
-
B.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
C.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
D.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
E.
Shaw v. Reno
Shaw v. Reno is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the use of race in legislative redistricting by holding that bizarrely shaped, race-based districts can violate the Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Target entity description: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of using an independent commission, rather than the state legislature, to draw congressional district boundaries.
-
A.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee is a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the scope of federal protections against voting discrimination, particularly under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
-
B.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
C.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
D.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
E.
Shaw v. Reno
Shaw v. Reno is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the use of race in legislative redistricting by holding that bizarrely shaped, race-based districts can violate the Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
U.S. Supreme Court case
ⓘ
court case ⓘ landmark election law case ⓘ |
| affects |
state power over federal elections
ⓘ
use of direct democracy in election law ⓘ |
| argumentDate | 2015-03-02 ⓘ |
| category |
2015 in United States case law
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases ⓘ United States elections case law ⓘ |
| citation |
135 S. Ct. 2652
ⓘ
192 L. Ed. 2d 704 ⓘ 576 U.S. 787 ⓘ |
| concerns | congressional district boundaries in Arizona ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Article I Section 4 Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2015-06-29 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 13-1314 ⓘ |
| holding |
States may use independent commissions created by voter initiative to draw congressional districts.
ⓘ
The term "Legislature" in the Elections Clause encompasses the lawmaking processes of the state, including voter initiatives. ⓘ |
| joinedDissent |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| joinedMajority |
Anthony Kennedy
ⓘ
linked to:
Anthony M. Kennedy
Elena Kagan ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen Breyer ⓘ
linked to:
Stephen G. Breyer
|
| legalIssue |
Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution
ⓘ
congressional redistricting ⓘ state initiative power ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| originatedFrom |
State of Arizona
ⓘ
linked to:
Arizona
|
| petitioner | Arizona State Legislature ⓘ |
| precedentFor | use of independent commissions for congressional redistricting in other states ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Rucho v. Common Cause
ⓘ
Vieth v. Jubelirer ⓘ |
| relatedTo | Arizona Proposition 106 (2000) ⓘ |
| respondent |
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
ⓘ
Arizona Secretary of State ⓘ |
| termOfCourt | October Term 2014 ⓘ |
| topic |
gerrymandering
ⓘ
independent redistricting commissions ⓘ |
| voteDissent | 4 ⓘ |
| voteMajority | 5 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Description of subject: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of using an independent commission, rather than the state legislature, to draw congressional district boundaries.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution
→
citedInCase
→
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
ⓘ
Elections Clause
→
relatedCase
→
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
ⓘ
Smiley v. Holm
→
isCitedIn
→
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
ⓘ
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
→
significantCourtCase
→
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
ⓘ