The article is nuts to think Bush v. Gore would have an impact upon this case. Leaving aside that the point being raised was in Rhenquist's concurrence was supported by only three justices including Rhenquist and significantly not including Kennedy, holding that state courts couldn't make decisions because they were not the state legislature is a long way from saying that a procedure established by initiative could not do so since as the article points out, both Ohio ex. rel. Davis v. Hildebrant and Smiley v. Holm make clear that the term "state legislature" in the U.S. Constitution is not to be so narrowly construed as this lawsuit is trying to assert. At worst, I'd expect a 6-3 ruling upholding the commission and conceivably it could be as high as 9-0, tho Thomas is the justice most likely to sympathize with the plaintiffs.
I think mentioning the concurrence is just a way of bringing up a potential argument against the redistricting commission's Constitutionality, if only because there are scant few arguments on that side. It seems like this should be 9-0 easily. This is a question of state level separation of powers and really just belongs to the Arizona court system.
