CASE SUMMARY

On November 10, 2021 an Idaho voter filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court challenging the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment's adopted legislative plan as violating the Idaho Constitution. Plaintiff alleged the Commission's final legislative plan violated article III, § 5 of the Idaho Constitution, which generally provides that counties can only be split in the formation of legislative districts to the extent it is reasonably necessary in order to comply with the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff asserted the Commission's final plan, which divided 8 counties and had a total of 13 external divisions, went beyond what is reasonably necessary to comply with federal constitutional requirements and cited to his own submitted plan, which divided 7 counties and had a total of 9 external divisions, as support for his claim. The plaintiff requested a judicial declaration that the Commission's legislative plan violated the Idaho Constitution, a writ of prohibition barring the Secretary of State from transmitting the final reapportionment report to state legislative leaders, and for the Court to either adopt the plaintiffs' own proposed legislative plan or remand the matter back to the Commission for further consideration in adherence to the Idaho Constitution.

On November 23, 2021 the case was consolidated with another challenge to Idaho's adopted legislative plan, Ada County v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment. On December 17, 2021 the Court issued another order consolidating two more challenges to Idaho's adopted legislative plan, Stucki v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment and Allan v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment.

On January 27, 2022 the Idaho Supreme Court issued its opinion upholding the Commission's final legislative plan as valid. The Court first reinterpreted article III, § 5 in the context of Idaho's modern redistricting process as imposing a "reasonably determined" standard on the Commission's determinations as to which counties must be divided to comply with the U.S. Constitution's equal population requirements. The Court found the adopted plan met this standard on the grounds the Commission's report adequately explained how the adopted plan better achieved equal population goals than the alternative plans before it, particularly its finding that the alternative plans underpopulated northern Idaho at the expense of the rest of the state and only achieved a "presumptively constitutional maximum population deviation" using "arbitrary boundary lines." Finally, the Court held the plan also complied with the redistricting criteria provided in Idaho Code § 72-1506, finding the Commission's balancing of these considerations to be reasonable.

Related Cases: Ada County v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment; Stucki v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment; Allan v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment

CASE LIBRARY

Idaho Supreme Court - No. 49261-2021 [together with Nos. 49267-2021, 49261-2021, & 49353-2021]

• Petition for Review - 11/10/21
• Scheduling Order - 11/15/21
• Notice of Transmittal of the Record of Proceedings for the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment - 11/17/21
• Motion for Clarification - 11/18/21
• Motion to Consolidate and Align Briefing Schedule - 11/19/21
• Response to Motion to Consolidate and Align Briefing Schedule - 11/22/21
• Order Denying Motion for Clarification - 11/22/21
• Order Consolidating Actions and Resetting Briefing Schedule - 11/23/21
• Petitioner Branden Durst's Opening Brief - 12/2/21
• Declaration of Branden John Durst - 12/2/21
• Notice of Respondents' Available Dates for Oral Argument - 12/2/21
• Notice of Petitioner's Availability for Oral Argument - 12/2/21
• Notice of Petitioner Ada County's Available Dates for Oral Argument - 12/2/21
• Ada County's Brief in Support of Petition - 12/2/21
• Errata Sheet for Petitioner Branden Durst's Opening Brief - 12/3/21
• City of Eagle's Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Ada County's Petition Challenging the Constitutionality of Reapportionment Plan L03 - 12/14/21
• Conditional Non-Opposition to City of Eagle's Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief - 12/16/21
• Notice of Non-Opposition to Chief J. Allan and Devon Boyer Motion to Consolidate - 12/17/21
• Order to Consolidate and Set Briefing Schedule - 12/17/21
• Order Granting the City of Eagle Permission to File an Amicus Curiae Brief - 12/17/21
• Motion to File Corrected Respondents Idaho Commission for Reapportionment's and Lawrence Denney's Response Brief - 12/17/21
• Verified Petition to Intervene, or in the Alternative, Challenging Reapportionment Plan L03 and Request for Writ of Prohibition and Remand - 12/17/21
• Order Granting Petition to Intervene - 12/22/21
• Order Granting Motion to File Corrected Brief - 12/22/21
• Corrected Respondents Idaho Commission for Reapportionment's and Lawrence Denney's Response Brief - 12/22/21
• Intervenor-Petitioner Canyon County's Opening Brief - 12/22/21
• Petitioner Branden Durst's Reply Brief to Respondents' Corrected Response Brief - 12/23/21
• Respondents Idaho Commission for Reapportionment's and Lawrence Denney's Response Brief to Petitioner Spencer Stucki - 12/23/21
• Petitioner Ada County's Reply Brief to Respondents' Corrected Response Brief - 12/23/21
• Petitioner Stucki's Reply Brief to Respondents' Response Brief - 12/30/21
• Respondents Idaho Commission for Reapportionment and Lawrence Denney's Response Brief to Petitioners Chief J. Allan and Devon Boyer - 12/30/21
• Amicus Curiae Brief of the City of Eagle - 12/30/21
• Respondents Idaho Commission for Reapportionment and Lawrence Denney's Response Brief to Intervenor-Petitioner Canyon County - 1/3/22
• Order Scheduling Oral Argument - 1/4/22
• Reply Brief of Petitioners Chief J. Allan and Devon Boyer - 1/7/22
• Opinion - 1/27/22