Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n

Background

A group of Arizona voters sued to challenge the State’s new legislative district map, saying the districts were not equal enough in population. Arizona had created an independent five-member commission (two Republicans, two Democrats, one independent) to draw 30 legislative districts. The Commission began with a grid producing a 4.07% deviation, adjusted some boundaries to try to secure Department of Justice approval under the Voting Rights Act, and adopted a final map with an 8.8% maximum population deviation; the Justice Department then precleared the plan and the voters sued the next day.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether population differences under 10% automatically show a constitutional violation. It explained that deviations below 10% are usually treated as minor and that challengers must prove it is more likely than not that illegitimate factors predominated. The record showed the Commission adjusted boundaries mainly to increase minority voters’ ability to elect candidates and to seek Justice Department preclearance, not primarily to gain partisan advantage. The District Court’s factual finding to that effect was supported by evidence, so the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The decision makes clear that small population differences (under 10%) will rarely by themselves be enough to overturn a map when a state shows legitimate reasons, like Voting Rights Act compliance. The ruling rests on the specific facts here, including DOJ preclearance and the Commission’s documented effort to protect minority voting strength, and challengers must provide strong evidence to prove otherwise.