Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n
136 S. Ct. 1301
SCOTUS2016Background
- After the 2010 census Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission (2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, 1 Independent) drew new legislative districts; an initial grid plan had a 4.07% maximum population deviation, later revised to 8.8% on a 3–2 vote.
- The Commission used counsel, mapping consultants, a statistician, and a Voting Rights Act (VRA) specialist and sought DOJ preclearance under §5.
- A statistician warned DOJ might not accept the draft’s number of minority ability-to-elect districts (the Commission’s benchmark had 10); the Commission adjusted several districts (notably Districts 24, 26, and 8) to preserve/enhance minority voting strength.
- The final plan (8.8% deviation) was precleared by the Department of Justice.
- Appellants sued under the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing population deviations reflected partisan motives; a three-judge district court upheld the map (2–1), finding deviations primarily motivated by good-faith VRA compliance.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding deviations under 10% are presumptively minor and appellants failed to show illegitimate factors predominated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether population deviations <10% create a prima facie Equal Protection violation | Harris: deviations show unconstitutional malapportionment and partisan intent | Commission: deviations <10% are minor and lawful if motivated by legitimate state interests | Deviations under 10% do not create a prima facie violation; plaintiff must show illegitimate factors predominate |
| Burden and proof standard for <10% deviations | Harris: numbers plus circumstantial evidence suffice to show predominance of partisan motives | Commission: plaintiffs must prove it is more probable than not that illegitimate considerations predominated | Court: plaintiffs must show predominance of illegitimate motives by a preponderance of the evidence; attacks will seldom succeed |
| Legitimacy of VRA §5 compliance as a justification | Harris: post-Shelby County, VRA compliance cannot justify deviations | Commission: at map-drawing time (2010) §5 compliance was a legitimate state interest; adjustments aimed at preserving ability-to-elect districts | Court: compliance with §5 (and seeking DOJ preclearance) was a legitimate justification for deviations made in 2010; record shows primary motive was VRA compliance |
| Significance of partisan-leaning population patterns and related precedents (e.g., Cox) | Harris: underpopulated Democratic districts and overpopulated Republican districts show partisan gerrymandering; Cox supports reversal | Commission: partisan patterns can result from lawful VRA-driven adjustments; record lacks proof of predominance of partisan intent | Court: patterns can be explained by VRA-driven district shaping; Cox is inapplicable because plaintiffs here did not carry their burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (discusses "as nearly of equal population as is practicable" and legitimate deviations)
- Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (defines "minor deviations" as under 10%)
- Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (minor deviations do not by themselves create prima facie invidious discrimination)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (addresses §5 compliance as a legitimate consideration in redistricting contexts)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (explains crossover and ability-to-elect analysis under the VRA)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (invalidated §4(b) coverage formula; decision occurred after Arizona’s plan was drawn)
- Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 (summarily affirmed district court finding <10% deviation unconstitutional where illegitimate factors predominated)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (standard of review for district court factual findings)