Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n

Arizona voters said the state redistricting commission over-populated Republican-leaning districts and under-populated Democratic-leaning districts, weakening some votes. The Supreme Court decided that minor population differences are constitutional when they result from legitimate considerations, including a good-faith effort to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Breyer wrote the 8–0 opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Majority

Breyer

Roberts

Kennedy

Thomas

Ginsburg

Alito

Sotomayor

Kagan

The decision affects voters whose legislative districts have slightly different population totals. For example, a voter in a larger district may have less individual voting power, but small differences can stand when tied to legitimate redistricting goals.

The Court has finished this docket action. Arizona and its voters must apply the decision's approach in future disputes over legislative district population differences.

The Court said small district population differences can be constitutional when they stem from legitimate goals, including good-faith compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Arizona voters and redistricting officials are affected. Voters in more-populated districts may have less individual voting power, but minor differences may be allowed.

The Court has completed the case. Future Arizona redistricting disputes must assess whether population differences came from legitimate considerations.