At a Glance
Appellants brought this challenge to the 2012 Arizona redistricting plan alleging that the minor population deviations in the plan were motivated by pro-Democratic partisanship. The district court found that they were not. Instead, the district court held that the minor population deviations were motivated by the Commission’s goal of achieving Section 5 preclearance on the first attempt. Now, Appellants urge this Court to hold that achieving Section 5 preclearance approval was not a legitimate or rational justification for the minor population deviations.
Back to topAbout this Case
Appellants brought this challenge to the 2012 Arizona redistricting plan alleging that the minor population deviations in the plan were motivated by pro-Democratic partisanship. The district court found that they were not. Instead, the district court held that the minor population deviations were motivated by the Commission’s goal of achieving Section 5 preclearance on the first attempt. Now, Appellants urge this Court to hold that achieving Section 5 preclearance approval was not a legitimate or rational justification for the minor population deviations.