Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: September 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM

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

Order from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (9/5/03)
Supreme Court Arizona, Response to Motion for Stay of Proceedings (10/20/03)
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County Ruling on Matter Taken Under Advisement (11/3/03)
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County Ruling (11/7/03)
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County Findings of Fact (1/16/04)
Court of Appeals, State of Arizona Division 1 Order (10/21/05)

Commentary

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you are going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio Secretary of State Releases Report on Voter Fraud

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released a report today on voter fraud in Ohio during the 2012 general election. In a press release, Husted stated that while voter fraud does exist in Ohio, "it is not an epidemic." According to the report, 135 voter fraud cases have been referred to law enforcement for possible prosecution. Twenty of these cases involved voters attempting to vote in Ohio and another state. The report shows that 115 cases were referred to local Ohio county prosecutors. According to Husted as quoted in the Columbus Dispatch, most of these cases involved voters attempting to vote twice within the state, and in a "majority" of instances, only one vote was counted.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | electionlaw@osu.edu

Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law @ Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar