The opinion delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer reads, in part,
On the basis of the facts that we have summarized, the District Court majority found that “the population deviations were primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act . . . even though partisanship played some role.” 993 F. Supp. 2d, at 1046. This conclusion was well supported in the record. And as a result, appellants have not shown that it is more probable than not that illegitimate considerations were the predominant motivation behind the plan’s deviations from mathematically equal district populations—deviations that were under 10%. Consequently, they have failed to show that the Commission’s plan violates the Equal Protection Clause...On December 9, 2015, the Arizona Eagletarian reported,
Remember from yesterday's post that news coverage of the hearing seemed to lean toward wondering how the Harris plaintiffs could even justify bringing this case to the Supreme Court? Therefore, as USA Today reported,
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared unlikely to toss out Arizona's state legislative districts because of population differences, but several justices expressed concern that an independent redistricting commission took politics, along with race and ethnicity, into consideration."
This evening I began reading the 74-page transcript. It didn't take long before I could see why Richard Wolf would be so bold as to make that his lede.The AIRC issued the following statement regarding the ruling,
Wednesday, April 20, 2016 -
Today, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that Arizona's state legislative districts are constitutional.
The Commission is pleased with the Court's decision and is gratified that Arizonans will continue using the districting plans created by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in Arizona legislative elections through 2020. The Commission is grateful for the pro bono representation it received from Paul Smith and his team at the law firm Jenner Block.