 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona Minority Coalition For Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission10/21/2005
rly rejected the Nation's arguments concerning this provision. See supra 102-07.
Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(14)(E) states that " o the extent practicable, district lines shall use . . . undivided census tracts." The Commission did not violate this provision by dividing a census tract in order to place the Tribe in a congressional district separate from the majority of Nation members. The Commission validly compromised the census-tract goal to accommodate the Tribe's community of interest. The trial court properly rejected the Nation's arguments concerning this section. See supra 108.
Although the trial court erroneously used the strict scrutiny standard to decide the Nation's equal protection challenges to the congressional redistricting plan, the court correctly entered summary judgment against the Nation. See supra 92, 109.
CONCLUSION
The trial court erred by applying the strict scrutiny standard of review to decide the equal protection challenges to the legislative redistricting plan. For this reason, we reverse that portion of the judgment entered by the court on January 16, 2004, that invalidated the legislative redistricting plan and ordered the Commission to take additional action in constructing a new plan. We remand with instructions that the trial court apply the rational basis standard of review to resolve these challenges. We additionally instruct the court to decide whether the Commission violated the Equal Protection Clause and/or Article 4, Part 2, Sections 1(14) and (15) of the Arizona Constitution, after considering our interpretation of those provisions.
On remand, the trial court, in its discretion and after consulting with the parties, can determine whether and to what extent a new trial is warranted, or whether selected submission of additional evidence and/or argument is appropriate.
In light of our holding that the trial court erred in the portion of the January 16, 2004 judgment concerning the legislative redistricting plan, we also vacate the court's judgment entered on April 12, 2004 approving a new legislative redistricting plan. The arguments on appeal concerning the propriety of that plan are therefore rendered moot, and we do not address them.
The trial court properly entered summary judgment against the Nation on its challenges to the congressional redistricting plan. We therefore affirm the portion of the January 16, 2004 judgment reflecting that ruling.
Because the Coalition is no longer the prevailing party on its challenges to the legislative redistricting plan, we vacate the trial court's award of attorneys' fees in favor of the Coalition. We additionally deny its request for an award of attorneys' fees on appeal.
Finally, we vacate this court's May 28, 2004 decision order, which had stayed the trial court's January 16, 2004, and April 12, 2004 judgments.
Ann A. Scott Timmer, Presiding Judge
Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge
Sheldon H. Weisberg, Chief Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|