OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Arizona Minority Coalition for Redistricting v. The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: March 6, 2002 / October 21, 2005
State: Arizona
Issue: Redistricting
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S District Court for the District of Arizona (Case CV-03-1036-PHX-ROS); Supreme Court State of Arizona (Case CV-03-0356-SA); Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (Case CV 2002-004380); Court of Appeals, State of Arizona Division One (Case 1 CA-CV 04-0061)

Summary

In this case, Plaintiffs, the Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting, several state legislators and others, brought Equal Protection challenges to Arizona's new districting plans for its state legislature and its congressional delegation. With respect to the redistricting plan regarding the state legislature, Plaintiffs specifically alleged that competitive districts were not created by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission ("Commission"). As to the congressional redistricting, Plaintiffs alleged that this new plan was a violation of Equal Protection as it discriminated based on race. Part of this alleged discrimination and challenge to the improper congressional plan consisted of removing the Hopi Tribe from the same district as the Navajo Nation.

The trial court enjoined the legislative plan in question, and entered summary judgment in favor of the Commission in relation to the congressional redistricting plan. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's holding regarding the state legislature districting plan, and remanded this claim for further analysis under rational basis, rather than strict scrutiny, review. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's granting of summary judgment on the Equal Protections claim regarding the congressional districting, as the Court of Appeals found that placing the Hopi Tribe in a separate district from the Navajo Nation respected the interests of both groups and the districts were properly drawn.

Court Documents

Related Links

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

North Carolina’s disputed race for governor: historical context

Edward B. Foley

Federal courts have a power to protect voting rights that they lacked until recently.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Donald Trump video outlines first 100 day plans

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted on Fox28 about Donald Trump’s latest video outlining plans for his first 100 days in office.

"Take immigration for example, one of the cornerstones of the Trump campaign, not just building the wall, but reversing some of President Obama's actions on immigration, in particular the protection of the immigrant children," Tokaji said. "There will be a big backlash from the growing Latino population if he acts too aggressively on that, something that could hurt the Republican Party for decades."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Divided District Court Panel Finds Wisconsin Assembly Districts Unconstitutionally Drawn

In a 2-1 opinion, a District Court panel determined that the redistricting plan enacted by the Wisconsin legislature in 2011 was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The court deferred its ruling as to a remedy, ordering further briefing by the parties. The case is Whitford v. Nichol.

more info & analysis...