Term: 2015
Docket: 14-232
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
- Pro
14-232 HARRIS V. AZ INDEPENDENT COMMISSION DECISION BELOW: 993 F.Supp.2d 1042 ORDER OF 7/2/2015: LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 PRESENTED BY THE STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION. JURISDICTION NOTED 6/30/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Does the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justify intentionally creating over-populated legislative districts that result in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the one- person, one-vote principle? 2. Does the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permit the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle? And, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, is this still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013)? 3. Was the Arizona redistricting commission correct to disregard the majority--minority rule and rely on race and political party affiliation to create Hispanic "influence" districts? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-0894
In Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, upholding its redrawing of state legislative districts. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, argued that the commission's plan violated the "one person, one vote" principle because it overpopulated certain districts which resulted in their votes being devalued. They claimed this was done intentionally to benefit Democrats. However, the court found no evidence to support these claims and concluded that minor population deviations among districts were permissible if they are based on legitimate considerations such as complying with federal voting rights law or creating geographically compact districts.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, argued that the majority's decision failed to properly apply the constitutional principle of "one person, one vote." The dissenters believed that the commission had intentionally created districts with unequal populations for partisan advantage, which they saw as a violation of equal protection rights. They also disagreed with the majority's conclusion that population deviations were justified by legitimate state interests such as complying with federal voting laws and creating competitive districts. Instead, they felt these justifications were pretextual and not supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore, according to them, this redistricting plan should have been struck down as unconstitutional.
