January 28, 2022

Yesterday the Idaho Supreme Court issued an opinion allowing the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment Legislative District Map (L03) to stand, rejecting lawsuits aimed at having a different map chosen or having the map redrawn.

The Court, in a summary statement described the genesis of the joined lawsuits (Durst v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment), saying, “This case arises out of multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of Plan L03, the legislative redistricting plan adopted by the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment (“the Commission”).  They summarized their ruling as follows, “The Idaho Supreme Court held that the Petitioners failed to establish that the Commission unreasonably determined” that eight county splits were necessary to comport with the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court further held that Petitioners had failed to show Plan L03 violated Idaho Code section 72-1506. Accordingly, the Court denied the Petitioners’ requests to issue a writ of prohibition barring implementation of the Commission’s Plan L03.”

Plaintiff Branden Durst, also a candidate for Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction, commented, “In making their decision yesterday, the Idaho Supreme Court said, “Jim Jones was right.”  Jones, a liberal former justice, was the lone dissenter in the Twin Falls County case that was relied upon by the petitioners.  The Court “disavowed” their decision in Twin Falls and subsequently the four conservatives who preceded them.  What is more striking, however, is how quick the court was to ignore the principle of stare decisis and to ignore the plain reading of the Idaho Constitution.  This is an activist court that must be reigned in.”

You can read the summary statement of the Court, here:

Click to access 49261summ.pdf

The full opinion can be seen, here:

Click to access 49261.pdf

You can view map L03 and determine in which legislative district you reside, here:

L03 Lookup

To learn more about Branden Durst, visit:  Durst for Idaho

 

1 COMMENT

  1. This sums it up… What is more striking, however, is how quick the court was to ignore the principle of stare decisis and to ignore the plain reading of the Idaho Constitution. This is an activist court that must be reigned in.”

Leave a Reply to HERNAN LAWLESS Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.