505 P.3d 324
Idaho2022Background:
- After the 2020 census, the bipartisan Idaho Commission for Reapportionment adopted legislative Plan L03 (unanimous vote adopting plan Nov. 5; Final Report filed Nov. 12, 2021). Plan L03 has a maximum population deviation of 5.84% and splits eight counties.
- Multiple petitioners (Branden Durst, Ada County, Spencer Stucki, tribal leaders Chief J. Allan and Devon Boyer, and intervenor Canyon County) challenged L03, arguing it split more counties than necessary under Idaho Const. art. III, § 5 and violated Idaho Code § 72-1506; petitioners sought a writ preventing transmission/implementation of L03.
- The Commission considered numerous public maps, including several seven-county-split maps (L075, L076, L079) with ~10% deviations and Durst’s Plan L084, and explained in its Final Report why it rejected those plans as likely violating equal protection or using arbitrary boundaries.
- The Supreme Court treated Durst’s petition (filed two days before the Final Report was officially filed) as becoming effective when the Final Report was filed and proceeded to review the merits.
- The Court reviewed federal Equal Protection principles (one person, one vote) and Idaho law (Idaho Const. art. III, § 5 — county splits only to the extent reasonably determined necessary to comply with the U.S. Constitution) and declined to issue the requested writ; costs awarded to respondents.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Durst’s petition | Durst: petition timely or should be treated like a prematurely filed appeal that becomes effective when Final Report filed | Respondents: petition premature/untimely because filed before Final Report was filed with Secretary of State | Court: Durst’s petition became valid when Final Report was filed (Nov. 12); petition is timely |
| Compliance with U.S. Equal Protection | Petitioners: existence of seven-county plans (≤10% deviation) shows only seven splits were necessary | Respondents: L03’s 5.84% deviation is presumptively constitutional; Commission reasonably analyzed alternatives | Court: L03 satisfies federal equal protection (5.84%); petitioners did not prove federal violation |
| Whether Commission reasonably determined number of county splits under Idaho Const. art. III, § 5 | Petitioners: Commission split eight counties though other plausible maps split seven; Commission erred in rejecting those plans | Commission: analyzed public plans and reasonably found seven-split plans caused regional under/overpopulation, arbitrary boundaries, or other equal-protection defects; balancing required | Court: Commission reasonably determined eight county splits necessary; petitioners failed to show Commission acted unreasonably; Court disavowed prior Twin Falls County holdings to the extent they ignored the "reasonably determined" language |
| Compliance with Idaho Code § 72-1506 (criteria like communities of interest, county integrity) | Ada/Stucki/Allan/Boyer: L03 violates statutory criteria (unnecessary county splits; failed to preserve tribal communities of interest; oddly shaped districts; precinct/road connectivity issues) | Respondents: statutory criteria are subordinate to federal and state constitutional requirements; Commission balanced competing statutory criteria and prioritized voter equality | Court: § 72-1506 is subordinate to constitutional mandates; Court upheld Commission’s balancing and held L03 does not violate § 72-1506 |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (one person, one vote; states must make honest good-faith effort to equalize legislative districts)
- Brown v. Thompson, 462 U.S. 835 (plans with <10% deviation are generally presumptively constitutional but not immune from challenge)
- Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga.) (regional underpopulation/overpopulation can render a <10% plan unconstitutional)
- Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 (Supreme Court disposition affirming the Larios outcome without substantive reversal)
- Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm’n on Redistricting, 152 Idaho 346, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho case on county splits; Court here disavows parts that ignored "reasonably determined" language)
- Bonneville Cnty. v. Ysursa, 142 Idaho 464, 129 P.3d 1213 (Idaho precedent on Commission authority and hierarchy of law in redistricting)
- Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (discusses that 10% guideline is not an absolute safe harbor)
- Smith v. Idaho Comm’n for Reapportionment, 136 Idaho 542, 38 P.3d 121 (Idaho case addressing plan deviations and prior redistricting challenges)
- Bingham Cnty. v. Idaho Comm’n for Reapportionment, 137 Idaho 872, 55 P.3d 865 (Idaho decision invalidating plan with large deviation)