The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission will once again take on a big-name Washington, D.C., attorney to argue its case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s right to draw congressional boundaries opened the door for a second, long-dormant challenge to the districts to move forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the lines for the state’s 30 legislative districts were illegally drawn.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled upheld the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s authority to draw congressional districts, defying expectations that it would return that power to the Legislature for the first time in more than 20 years.

If the U.S. Supreme Court returns authority for congressional redistricting to the Legislature, lawmakers will have to become familiar again with a process they haven’t used in nearly a quarter century.

Even if the US Supreme Court rules that the IRC lacks the authority to draw congressional districts, Dems may have a chance to hold on to the current congressional map for at least one more cycle.

Veteran U.S. Supreme Court watchers saw good omens for the Legislature in its lawsuit against the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission as several key justices expressed sympathy with lawmakers’ argument that the U.S. Constitution requires them to draw congressional lines.

The United States Supreme Court set out to today determine what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote that state legislatures shall determine the time, manner and place of federal elections.

Former US Solicitor General Paul Clement, who represents the Legislature in Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, kicked things off today (March 2) at the US Supreme Court.

The fate of Arizona’s commission-based process for drawing the state’s congressional districts will come down to how the U.S. Supreme Court defines the word “legislature.”