This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
CorenSearchBot complains that this article "appears to include material copied directly from:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-1314/ (Duplication Detector report · Copyvios report)" which is in fact in the public domain and cited.--agr (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a 2015 United States Supreme Court case wherein the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission
[...]the Court vacated the decision by the Tenth Circuit and sent it back to the lower court for reconsideration[...]
Why do you think those sentences contradict each other? The second sentence is referring to a later decision. postdlf (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Postdlf says, it's two different cases; the court first decided the Arizona case, affirming it; and then vacated the Colorado case, ordering the lower court to take another look at it in light of the Arizona case. In any case, I've reworded that portion to make it more clear.
I'll also add that, even if it were the same case, there's no inherent contradiction in a court upholding a right of a party by vacating or reversing a judgment of a lower court. If the three-judge district court had held that the voters did not have the authority to draw districts, and the Supreme Court were to hold that the lower court was wrong, you'd have the court upholding the right of the voters by vacating or reversing the lower court. That wasn't the facts here (the district court sided with the voters, and the Supreme Court agreed with the district court), but it could well have gone that way. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
