The Idaho Supreme Court has upheld the state’s new map redrawing Idaho’s 35 legislative districts, finding that four separate lawsuits against the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment failed to show that the way the map split some counties was unreasonable.
The unanimous ruling written by Justice John Stegner was released Thursday afternoon.
The bipartisan Idaho Commission for Reapportionment is tasked every 10 years with redrawing voting districts based on the most recent census, attempting to create districts with about 52,000 residents each. The commission is required to map new legislative districts that do not have more than a 10 percent population variance, and they are supposed to avoid dividing counties into multiple districts as much as possible.
After the new legislative map was released last year, former state lawmaker Branden Durst sued, contending it was unconstitutional because it split more counties than necessary.
Commissioners in Ada County also sued over the number of county splits, and Spencer Stucki, a Chubbuck resident, sued to challenge the way districts are redrawn in Southeast Idaho.
Much of the concern among Southeast Idaho lawmakers surrounded the split of Bannock County into multiple legislative districts, and that the three most southeastern counties — Bear Lake, Franklin and Oneida — were split into three different legislative districts.
Franklin County was added to District 28, which includes all of Power County, some of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and most of Bannock County — excluding most of the Pocatello and Chubbuck metro areas in Bannock County (which are part of District 29) and a portion east of Interstate 15 near the Bannock County city of Lava Hot Springs.
Oneida County was added to District 27, which includes Cassia and Minidoka counties. Bear Lake County will remain in what will become District 35, previously District 32, that includes Caribou County, the portion of Bannock County encompassing Lava Hot Springs, some of Bonneville County and all of Teton County.
The changes put Rep. Kevin Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, and Rep. Randy Armstrong, R-Inkom, in what will become District 35, meaning the two must run against face off against incumbent Republican Rep. Chad Christensen, R-Iona, in this year’s elections if they want to remain in the Idaho Legislature. The new boundaries for Idaho’s legislative districts will be in effect for the May 17 primary election.
Armstrong, Andrus and Christensen would have also had to face Rep. Marc Gibbs, R-Grace, but he recently announced he is retiring and will not seek reelection.
”I am retiring and I have made the announcement,” Gibbs told the Idaho State Journal in a text message on Saturday. “Redistricting did not have a bearing on my decision. After 14 years it was time to retire.”
In reference to the legislative map, Gibbs said, “I don’t like that map but I tried to draw a better map and I could see the complexity that is involved in redistricting. I applaud the commission for their work. I’m sure that the redistricting commission is a job that no one seeks, it is a no win issue.”
“It really isn’t fair to the people who live in south Bannock County because they are split into two different districts and the people that will represent them will probably live in Idaho Falls,” Andrus said. “Tell me how it makes sense for one person to represent the people in Montpelier, Driggs and everywhere else it seems like. It seems blatantly unfair to the constituents to have someone represent them that doesn’t even live in the area.”
When asked about his reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Andrus said, “I am a little surprised that they scrapped the suits, but then not that surprised at the same time considering the time constraints and other factors. I am just glad that we have some time to move forward, to make our plan and get to it.”
Chad Christensen said he understands much of the concern behind the suits involved keeping counties more whole, adding that “it is what it is. The Supreme Court has decided and now it’s time to prepare for the upcoming elections.”
The Idaho State Journal reached out to Gibbs for comment on Friday but did not receive a response.
The Coeur d’Alene Tribe in northern Idaho and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in southern Idaho filed a lawsuit as well, contending that the map wrongly split their respective reservations into different districts without regard for the fact that they are each “communities of interest” that should be maintained together as much as possible.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes expressed opposition and “great disappointment” to the legislative map because it split the Fort Hall Indian Reservation into three districts — District 28, District 35 and District 30, of which the latter includes all of Bingham County, and, in a change from the previous decade, Butte County as well.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes renewed its disappointment regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling in a statement released Friday.
According to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes statement, the Idaho Supreme Court stated that, “The (reapportionment) statute does not elevate a particular type of community of interest above another: cities, neighborhoods and tribal reservations are all treated the same under the statute.”
According to Fort Hall Business Chairman Devon Boyer, “The ruling is based on Idaho’s continued racial discrimination because the state does not recognize our tribal sovereignty and they need to recognize our unique status as Idaho tribes and reservations.”
Since 2001, the Tribes have requested to keep the largest Native American population in Idaho whole, in one legislative district, and for 30 years, our requests have fallen silent, as our reservation has been fractured in three different legislative districts, The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes said in the statement. Reservation constituency will continue with a three-way legislative district representation until the 2030 U.S. census and reapportionment process.
In its ruling, the Idaho Supreme Court acknowledged the difficult job faced by the redistricting commission, especially given Idaho’s unique geography and the different federal and state redistricting rules at play.
The U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause requires the commission to create districts that are as equal in population as possible, to ensure that each resident’s vote gets the same weight. The Idaho Constitution, meanwhile, says the commission can’t split more counties than it reasonably determines is necessary when drawing the map.
“Navigating this tension is no easy feat,” Stegner wrote, calling the work a “delicate balancing act.”
“To perform that balancing act as quickly and thoroughly as the Commission did, resulting in a legislative plan with unanimous bipartisan support on behalf of all six commissioners, is certainly laudable,” Stegner wrote.
Durst and the others who sued failed to show that the commission “unreasonably determined” that drafted maps that split fewer counties didn’t comply with the equal protection rules.
In the lawsuit from the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Tribes cited a long history of discrimination within the state and contended that given their long history of being a well-established community, that it is “self-evident that the Tribes’ interests in unity and maintaining their voting power should receive the same respect, if not more, than Idaho’s counties or cities do during the redistricting process.”
Stegner acknowledged that argument in the ruling but said that isn’t how the state law is written.
“We are unable to raise community interests, such as the Tribes’, above the counties’ interests, which are protected to a greater degree by the Idaho Constitution,” Stegner wrote. “To afford the Tribes the heightened status they seek, an amendment to the state constitution would be required.”
The Idaho Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on a fifth lawsuit from Elmore County resident Christopher Pentico that targets the way the new U.S. congressional district map splits some local voting precinct boundary lines. Oral arguments in that case were held Monday.
Most Popular
Comments / 0