[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] in two cases. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission [transcript, PDF] the court heard arguments on whether [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] the Elections Clause [text] of the US Constitution permits the state of Arizona to adopt a commission to draw congressional districts. Until 2000 the state legislature in Arizona had the task of redrawing congressional district lines after a census. However, voters of the state were not happy with the system, as it is common for the political party in power to use their influence to draw district lines as they see advantageous, thus increasing their party members’ chances of winning. In 2000 voters passed an amendment to allow an independent commission [official website] to control the redistricting. The Arizona state legislature filed suit three years ago in federal court.

In Ohio v. Clark [transcript, PDF] the court heard arguments on whether [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] a child’s out of court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher’s concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the confrontation clause [text] of the US Constitution. In 2010 a Cleveland boy showed up to his day care center with serious bruises and bloodshot eyes. The teacher voiced her concern, to which the boy explained that the injuries were inflicted by her mother’s boyfriend. The prosecutors of the case want the teacher who heard the boy’s story to testify in his place, as the boy is too young to go to court. Under the current readings of the clause, prosecutors are not allowed to bring in statements that an absent witness had said out of court if those statements qualify as “testimonial.” The defense is asking for the court to rule that defense lawyers should have the same opportunity as the prosecution to talk with both the boy and the teacher.