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

Of X-Rays, CT Scans, and Gerrymanders

Edward B. Foley

Progress in the detection of malignant redistricting.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Ranked-choice voting: A better way or chaos?

Professor Edward Foley’s book, “Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States” was quoted in The Ellsworth American, in an article about ranked-choice voting in Maine.

Plurality language was added to Maine’s Constitution in 1880 after none of the candidates for governor in the election of 1879 received a majority vote.

“After this ordeal, the state eliminated the requirement that a gubernatorial candidate win a majority in order to win the office outright; instead, a plurality would suffice,” Foley writes.
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Texas\' Request for Stay in Redistricting Case

In two 5-4 votes, the U.S. Supreme Court granted stays in a Texas redistricting case involving Congressional and state house questions, putting on hold the district court\'s orders for the Texas legislature to redraw certain district lines. The stays will be in place until the Supreme Court rules on Texas\' appeal, likely next year. The case is Perez v. Abbott.

more info & analysis...