New York Times

Justices Uphold Arizona’s Independently Redrawn Legislative Map

April 21, 2016

by Adam Liptak

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously upheldan Arizona state legislative map drawn by an independent redistricting commission, rejecting a challenge from Republicans who said the map was too favorable to Democrats.

The court last year upheld the commission’s role in drawing congressional maps, ruling that Arizona’s voters were entitled to try to make the process of drawing district lines less partisan by creating an independent redistricting commission.

Wednesday’s decision in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No 14-232, concerned a challenge from voters who said the state map the commission drew after the 2010 census violated the principle of “one person one vote” and was infected by unconstitutional partisanship.

The challengers noted that there were variations in the districts’ populations. But Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the court, said the contested deviations were less than the 10 percent that the Supreme Court has said is generally constitutionally tolerable.

“Given the inherent difficulty of measuring and comparing factors that may legitimately account for small deviations from strict mathematical equality, we believe that attacks on deviations under 10 percent will succeed only rarely, in unusual cases,” Justice Breyer wrote.

He added that factors other than partisanship appeared to explain the disparities in Arizona. The commission had, he said, considered compactness, contiguity, respect for “communities of interest,” geography, local boundaries, political competitiveness and compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

A divided three-judge trial court upheld the commission’s map, saying “the population deviations were primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act” but that “partisanship played some role.”

Justice Breyer said the challengers had failed to rebut the trial court’s conclusion that the main reason for the disparities was an effort to make sure that minority voters were protected.

He acknowledged that it was “likely true” that the map left Republican voters worse off. “But that fact may well reflect the tendency of minority populations in Arizona in 2010 to vote disproportionately for Democrats,” Justice Breyer wrote.

The challengers had also argued that Arizona’s attempt to comply with the Voting Rights Act was not legitimate because the Supreme Court had in 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, struck down a key part of the law.

Justice Breyer said the law was still in place when it mattered. “Arizona created the plan at issue here in 2010,” he wrote. “At the time, Arizona was subject to the Voting Rights Act, and we have never suggested the contrary.”