harris.vMoritz College of Law | Page not found
HTTP 404 Not Found

OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Case Information

Date Filed: April 29, 2014
State: Arizona
Issue: Redistricting
Courts that Heard this Case: US Supreme Court (Case 14-232); US District Court for the District of Arizona (Case 2:12-cv-00894)

Issue:

1. Does the desire to gain partisan
advantage for one political party justify
intentionally creating over-populated legislative
districts that result in tens of thousands of
individual voters being denied Equal Protection
because their individual votes are devalued,
violating the one-person, one-vote principle?
 

2. Does the desire to obtain favorable
preclearance review by the Justice Department
permit the creation of legislative districts that
deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle?
And, even if creating unequal districts to obtain
preclearance approval was once justified, is this
still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v.
Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013)?
 

3. Was the Arizona redistricting
commission correct to disregard the majorityminority
rule and rely on race and political party
affiliation to create Hispanic “influence” districts?

Status:

Jurisdictional Statement (filed 8/25/14). Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. (filed 11/13/14). Brief of appellee Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan in support of appellants (filed 09/04/15). Brief of appellants Wesley W. Harris, et al. (filed 09/04/15). Brief of appellee Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (filed 10/26/15). Oral argument held 12/8/15. Opinion filed 4/20/16.

District Court Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purging process

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in The Blade about Ohio’s voter purge law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

“I don’t think there’s any real reason to believe that the drop-off is going to be significant,” Mr. Foley said. “The Ohio law that was upheld in this case never disenfranchised anybody.”

 

 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Upholds Most Texas Districts in Racial Gerrymandering Case

In a 5-4 decision that reversed the ruling of the District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the drawing of most of the disputed Texas districts did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The case is Abbott v. Perez.

more info & analysis...