Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
| Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided April 26, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Wesley W. Harrisl, et al., appellants v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. |
| Docket no. | 14-232 |
| Citations | 578 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| 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 Arizona affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Thomas, Alito |
| 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.
- Scotusblog
References
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |