On December 1, 2021, an Idaho voter filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court challenging the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment's adopted legislative plans as violating the redistricting provisions codified in the Idaho Constitution and state law. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that the Commission failed to give "equal consideration" to the needs and input of counties, districts, and voters across the state by adopting their final plan without adequate time for public feedback and by ignoring testimony in support of submitted plans which split nine counties, as opposed to eight in the adopted plans. Petitioner argues that the state's redistricting criteria providing that county lines must be maintained "to the extent possible" does not prohibit a plan with nine county splits, particularly when that plan better serves Idaho's other criteria, including the linking of districts by major roads and avoiding splits of precincts and communities of interest. The petitioner is seeking a judicial declaration that the adopted legislative plans fail to meet the needs of counties and voters across the state, that the Idaho Constitution's equal population and county geographical boundaries redistricting requirements are not violated by a plan that contains nine county splits, and a court order requiring the commission to make appropriate revisions to the plans to remedy these issues, including consideration of the petitioners' own submitted plans.

On December 17, 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court issued an order consolidating this case with three other pending challenges to Idaho's enacted legislative plans.

For future filings in this case, see the litigation page for Durst v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment.

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

Similar Case: Pentico v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment


Idaho Supreme Court - No. 49295-2021 [together with Nos. 49621-2021, 49267-2021, & 49353-2021]