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

Flagging Online Falsehoods

Edward B. Foley

A remedy for foreign disinformation attacks

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Pro-DeWine group to bring dark money to 2018 Ohio governor's race

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in Cleveland.com about Securing Ohio’s Future, an advocacy group that isn’t required to disclose its donors or expenses.

"Taking a look at their website, it certainly appears a big part of their purpose is to support the Republican gubernatorial ticket," Tokaji said. "Does that mean they're in violation of the law? I can't say that for sure based on what I've seen, and based on the murkiness of the legal standard, but it's certainly pushing the envelope."
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Maryland Redistricting Case

The U.S. Supreme Court recently added the Maryland redistricting case of Benisek v. Lamone to the merits docket. The court postponed consideration of the jurisdiction question until hearing the case on the merits.

more info & analysis...