Legal Opinion

Twin Falls County v. Idaho Commission on Redistricting

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 2012No. 39373PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EISMANN, Justice.

This is a petition challenging the constitutionality of Plan L 87, a legislative redistricting plan adopted by the commission for reapportionment. We hold that the plan is invalid because it violates Article III, section 5, of the Idaho Constitution by dividing more counties than necessary to comply with the Constitution of the United States. The commission for reapportionment is directed to reconvene to adopt a revised plan.

I

Factual Background

On November 8, 1994, the electors of the State of Idaho ratified an amendment to Article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Brown v. ThomsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Rife v. LongIdaho Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Jewett v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1962

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176Supreme Court of Florida · 2012
  2. Wilson v. KasichOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Roesch v. KlemannIdaho Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Loren Wagner v. Russell Wagner Wanooka FarmsIdaho Supreme Court · 2016
  5. Pentico v. Idaho Commission for ReapportionmentIdaho Supreme Court · 2022

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API