Supreme Court Affirms Permissible Population Deviations in Arizona’s Redistricting Plan

Introduction

The case of Wesley W. Harris, et al. v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (578 U.S. 253, 2016) presents a critical examination of the balance between population equality in legislative districts and compliance with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The appellants, a group of Arizona voters, contested the state's newly drawn legislative districts, arguing that the population deviations among districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

At the heart of the dispute was whether the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission had sufficiently justified the population deviations within its redistricting plan, which remained under the 10% threshold deemed acceptable by prior jurisprudence. The Supreme Court's decision affirmed the lower court's ruling, upholding the redistricting plan as consistent with constitutional requirements.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Breyer, upheld a 3–judge Federal District Court's affirmation of Arizona's redistricting plan. The appellants argued that population deviations in the legislative districts were excessive and indicative of partisan gerrymandering, thereby violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

The Court analyzed the population deviations, noting that the maximum deviation was 8.8%, which is below the 10% threshold established in BROWN v. THOMSON (1983). The Court held that such deviations are permissible when justified by legitimate state interests, such as compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The appellants failed to demonstrate that the deviations were the result of illegitimate factors predominately, thus the Court affirmed the District Court's decision to uphold the redistricting plan.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced prior Supreme Court decisions to contextualize its ruling:

REYNOLDS v. SIMS (1964): Established the principle of "one person, one vote," requiring legislative districts to be as equal in population as possible.
BROWN v. THOMSON (1983): Recognized that population deviations under 10% do not inherently violate the Equal Protection Clause.
SHAW v. RENO (1993): Emphasized that redistricting must comply with traditional districting principles like compactness and contiguity.
GAFFNEY v. CUMMINGS (1973): Defined "minor deviations" and upheld plans with deviations below 10%.
Fund for Accurate and Informed Representation, Inc. v. Weprin (1992): Supported the acceptability of population deviations under established thresholds.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) and Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (2015): Discussed the complexities of compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013): While impacting the Voting Rights Act's enforcement mechanisms, the Court noted that Arizona's plan was created prior to this decision.

These precedents collectively reinforced the Court's stance that population deviations below 10%, especially when justified by compliance with the Voting Rights Act, do not constitute a constitutional violation.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and its application to legislative redistricting:

Population Equality: The Court reaffirmed that while districts should be as equal in population as practicable, minor deviations are permissible. Specifically, deviations under 10% are deemed acceptable unless proven otherwise.
Legitimate State Interests: Deviations are allowed when justified by legitimate considerations, such as compliance with the Voting Rights Act, maintaining political subdivision integrity, or ensuring competitive balance among political parties.
Burden of Proof: Appellants bear the burden of proving that population deviations are due to illegitimate motivations, such as partisan gerrymandering. In this case, they failed to meet this burden.
Voting Rights Act Compliance: The Commission's efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act, including attempts to create ability-to-elect districts, provided a legitimate justification for the population deviations.

The Court emphasized the difficulty in objectively measuring the influence of legitimate versus illegitimate factors in redistricting, thereby setting a high threshold for challenges based on population deviations below 10%.

Impact

The decision has significant implications for future redistricting efforts:

Threshold for Population Deviations: Reinforces that deviations under 10% are generally permissible, providing redistricting commissions with greater flexibility.
Voting Rights Compliance: Upholds the importance of complying with the Voting Rights Act in redistricting, even when such compliance results in population deviations.
Partisan Gerrymandering Challenges: Sets a precedent that makes it more challenging to successfully argue against redistricting plans based solely on minor population deviations, especially when legitimate interests are cited.
Judicial Deference: Demonstrates the Court's deference to legislative and independent redistricting bodies in managing population distributions, provided they act in good faith.

Future cases will likely reference this decision to evaluate the balance between demographic equality and the need to uphold voting rights and other legitimate state interests in redistricting.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts in the judgment are pivotal yet complex. Here's a simplified explanation:

Equal Protection Clause: Part of the Fourteenth Amendment, it mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In redistricting, this means districts should be as equal in population as possible to ensure fair representation.
Population Deviation: Refers to the difference in population size between the largest and smallest legislative districts. A deviation under 10% is generally acceptable, as confirmed by this judgment.
Voting Rights Act (VRA) Preclearance: Before certain jurisdictions can implement changes to voting practices or districting, they must receive approval from the Department of Justice to ensure compliance with the VRA, which seeks to prevent discrimination against minority voters.
Ability-to-Elect Districts: Districts where minority voters have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, ensuring their voting power is not diluted.
Hyperpacking: A gerrymandering tactic that concentrates as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts.

Understanding these terms is essential to grasp the Court's reasoning and the implications of the decision on redistricting practices.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's affirmation of Arizona's redistricting plan underscores the judiciary's recognition of the delicate balance between adhering to the Equal Protection Clause and fulfilling obligations under the Voting Rights Act. By upholding population deviations below the 10% threshold, the Court provides clear guidance that minor discrepancies in district populations are permissible when justified by legitimate state interests, such as protecting minority voting rights.

This decision reinforces the legitimacy of independent redistricting commissions in navigating the complex terrain of population equality and voting rights compliance. It also sets a high bar for future challenges against redistricting plans based on population deviations, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence of illegitimate motivations to overturn such plans.

Overall, Wesley W. Harris, et al. v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission serves as a pivotal precedent in the realm of electoral law, shaping the standards and expectations for fair and lawful redistricting practices in the United States.