‘A great sense of relief and pride’

BOISE — The Idaho Supreme Court unanimously upheld a new legislative district plan Thursday, rejecting four lawsuits that said it was unconstitutional.

Former Moscow Sen. Dan Schmidt, one of six members of the Citizens Commission for Reapportionment that approved the redistricting plan, said he felt “a great sense of relief and pride” following the ruling.

“I thought we did a really good job,” he said.

The Supreme Court agreed.

Given Idaho’s unique and challenging geography, as well as all the requirements under the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions, Justice John Stegner noted in his 26-page opinion that the redistricting commission’s ability to craft a viable legislative plan in such a short amount of time “is certainly laudable.”

“We think it appropriate to acknowledge the challenges the commission faced and to not overstep our responsibility,” Stegner wrote. “It is the commission that must make difficult choices in trying to balance the various competing interests involved.”

After receiving the 2020 census population figures in September, the commission spent two months crafting a new legislative district map for the state, as well as a congressional district map.

The overarching goal, the commission said, was to create districts that were as close in population as was reasonable, so voters across the state had equal representation.

The plan the commission came up with had a total population deviation between the largest and smallest districts of 5.84%, or about 3,000 people.

Stegner said that was the lowest deviation for any legislative redistricting plan ever adopted since 1994, when Idaho voters amended the Constitution to create the bipartisan redistricting commission.

Critics, however, said the plan fell short because it had eight county splits — meaning eight counties were divided between two or more legislative districts.

Former state Sen. Brandon Durst, who is currently running for superintendent of public instruction, said several other redistricting options — including one he submitted for consideration — only split seven counties.

The ink wasn’t even dry on the commission’s final report before Durst sued to block adoption of the plan. Ada and Canyon counties, the Coeur d’Alene and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Spencer Stucki, of Chubbuck, also filed suit.

The Supreme Court said none of the petitioners succeeded in showing that the commission was unreasonable in determining that an eight-county split was the best approach to satisfying the Equal Protection requirements. All of the alternative plans they cited had population deviations closer to 10%.

“Petitioners ask us to second-guess the commission and decide that another plan is better,” Stegner wrote. “The Constitution, however, directs us to review whether the commission reasonably determined eight counties must be split to satisfy equal protection.”

In an unusual move, Stegner devoted five pages in his opinion to quoting from the commission’s final report, wherein it explained in detail why it rejected other options that only split seven counties.

In an even more unusual move, the court “disavowed” parts of two previous rulings in redistricting challenges brought by Twin Falls County and Bonneville County.

In 2012, for example, the court determined that a plan that split 12 counties was unconstitutional, because alternative plans only split seven counties.

“In so holding, the court failed to consider the language in Article III, Section 5 (of the Idaho Constitution) that indicates a county may be divided if the commission ‘reasonably determined’ that 12 counties had to be divided to comply with the Equal Protection Clause,” Stegner wrote. “We now take this opportunity to disavow our decision (in that case), to the extent it failed to give effect to the ‘reasonably determined’ language.”

Schmidt said future redistricting commissions will benefit from Thursday’s decision.

“I wish we’d been able to talk with the justices before we went to work,” he said. “We really struggled with interpreting the Twin Falls and Bonneville rulings. They (Stegner and his colleagues) added clarity.”

The court still has to rule on a separate lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the congressional redistricting plan.

Spence may be contacted at bspence@lmtribune.com or (208) 791-9168.