Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources:  –  ·  ·  · scholar · JSTOR (April 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 8, 2015 Decided April 20, 2016
Full case name	Wesley W. Harris, et al., appellants v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.
Docket no.	14-232
Citations	578 U.S. ___ (more) 136 S. Ct. 1301; 194 L. Ed. 2d 497
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	993 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (D. Ariz. 2014); probable jurisdiction noted, 135 S. Ct. 2926 (2015).
Holding
Population deviations for legislative districts predominantly reflected commission's good-faith efforts to comply with Voting Rights Act and obtain preclearance from Department of Justice. United States District Court for the District of Arizona affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan
Case opinion
Majority	Breyer, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const., Amdt. XIV

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the one person, one vote principle under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a state's redistricting commission slight variances in drawing of legislative districts provided that the variance does not exceed 10 percent.^[1]

See also[]

• Evenwel v. Abbott
• Reynolds v. Sims — a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.

References[]

External links[]

• Text of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) is available from: Justia  Oyez (oral argument audio)  Supreme Court (slip opinion) 
• Scotusblog