Pentico v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment, 504 P.3d 376

Background

After the 2020 census (received Aug 12, 2021), the Idaho Secretary of State ordered formation of the six-member Commission for Reapportionment; the Commission convened Sept 1, 2021 and elected co-chairs that day.
The Commission adopted congressional Plan C03 (vote Nov 5, 2021), reaffirmed and adopted its Final Report Nov 10, and filed the Final Report with the Secretary of State on Nov 12, 2021 at 3:12 p.m.
Petitioner Christopher Pentico filed an original action (Dec 15, 2021) challenging (1) timeliness of the Final Report (claiming the 90-day clock began Aug 12) and (2) that Plan C03 unlawfully split local precincts in violation of Idaho Code §72-1506(7).
The Commission had voted unanimously that it could not complete legislative redistricting while retaining precinct lines, and voted 5–1 as to the congressional plan; Plan C03 splits six precincts in Ada County.
The Supreme Court reviewed statutory and constitutional text, precedent on apportionment equality, and legislative history, and denied Pentico’s requested writ of prohibition and attorney fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the 90‑day filing deadline begin (when was the Commission “organized”)?	Pentico: "organized" upon Secretary’s Aug 12 order; 90‑day clock began then, making Nov 12 filing late.	Respondents: "organized" when Commission elected officers (Sept 1); 90‑day clock began Sept 1, so filing was timely.	Court: "organized" means election of chair(s) under I.C. §72‑1505; Sept 1 start date; Final Report timely.
Whether §72‑1506(7)’s precinct‑retention requirement can be waived only for legislative plans (i.e., prohibits splitting precincts in congressional plan).	Pentico: Escape clause applies only to legislative redistricting; congressional plan must retain precincts.	Respondents: Text and structure show escape clause removes precinct restriction for the commission (hence for both legislative and congressional plans) once invoked.	Court: Statute unambiguous; the escape clause applies to the commission and thus can authorize splitting precincts in both plans.
Whether the Commission’s factual determination that it could not retain precincts was unsupported (Pentico offered Plan C039).	Pentico: His Plan C039 shows zero population deviation and splits no precincts, proving the Commission could have avoided splits.	Respondents: C039 fails other constitutional/statutory criteria and the controlling vote was the legislative‑plan waiver (which Pentico did not challenge).	Court: Pentico failed to challenge the legislative‑plan determination (the operative vote); his factual attack as presented fails.
Entitlement to attorney fees under I.C. §§12‑117 or 12‑121	Pentico: Seeks fees and costs as prevailing party against a government entity.	Respondents: Deny; fees only if prevailing or statutory standard met.	Court: Pentico not prevailing; fees denied (court clarifies interplay of §12‑117 and §12‑121 but awards none).

Key Cases Cited

Tennant v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm’n, 567 U.S. 758 (apportionment requires ‘‘as nearly as is practicable’’ population equality)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (House districts must be as equal in population as practicable)
Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (minor population deviations require justification; good‑faith effort standard)
Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho 135 (statutory/constitutional text must be followed when unambiguous)
State v. Schulz, 151 Idaho 863 (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning and context)
BHC Intermountain Hosp., Inc. v. Ada Cnty., 150 Idaho 93 (ambiguous statutes require legislative intent and policy review)
Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm’n on Redistricting, 152 Idaho 346 (presumption of regularity in performance of official duties; redistricting review context)
State v. Cota‑Medina, 163 Idaho 593 (interpretation of disjunctive "or")
Citizens Against Linscott/Interstate Asphalt Plant v. Bonner Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 168 Idaho 705 (standards on attorney‑fee statutes involving governmental parties)
Sanders v. Bd. of Trustees of Mountain Home Sch. Dist. No. 193, 156 Idaho 269 (statutory interpretation re: fee awards against government entities)