Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (the commission) (plaintiff), comprising two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent member, redrew Arizona’s 30 legislative districts after each decennial census. In accordance with the Equal Protection Clause, the commission first divided the state into 30 districts of equal population and then made whatever adjustments were necessary to promote geographic compactness and continuity, protect communities of interest, and comply with the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). An overall population deviation of up to 10 percent was considered minor. In 2010, the commission redrew Arizona’s legislative districts. Because Arizona’s prior district map had 10 ability-to-elect districts, meaning districts in which minority groups could elect their preferred candidates, Arizona’s new map needed to have at least 10 ability-to-elect districts to comply with the VRA. After the initial population-based district division, the commission adjusted the boundaries of Districts 8, 24, and 26 to increase the minority population in each. Districts 24 and 26 had previously been ability-to-elect districts, but District 8, a Republican-leaning district, had not previously been an ability-to-elect district. In redrawing District 8, the commission cited both VRA compliance and the need to increase party competition. The Republican commission members objected to the District 8 adjustments but were overruled. The final redistricting map had a total population deviation of 8.8 percent and 11 ability-to-elect districts. The Department of Justice (DOJ) approved the redistricted map as VRA compliant. A group of Arizona voters (the voters) (plaintiffs) challenged the redistricting map, arguing that the redrawn districts were insufficiently equal in population, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and that the population deviation was an improper attempt to promote the Democratic Party. The district court rejected the challenge, holding that the population deviations were primarily based on the commission’s good-faith efforts to comply with the VRA. The voters appealed.