State legislative districts under scrutiny

BOISE – North Idaho gets too much representation under the state’s current legislative districts, attorneys for a group of eastern Idaho officials charged Monday, and the Idaho Supreme Court should either re-divide the districts or convene a redistricting commission.

Attorney John Runft told the high court that by his calculations, 10 of the 11 northernmost districts in the state had fewer than the ideal number of people when drawn, while the rest of the state had more people per district. That gives northern Idaho “an additional hidden 1.6 representatives, creating unconstitutional regional deviation,” Runft argued in court documents.

But attorneys for the state, defending the plan that was developed by the state’s first bipartisan redistricting commission, said its overall deviation between districts is less than 10 percent, a standard that makes the plan presumptively constitutional. Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane told the justices that “mathematical manipulation” like Runft’s calculations doesn’t show anything unconstitutional, and that only “some evidence or taint of bad faith” could do that.

Justice Jim Jones asked Runft, “Is it your contention … that this was some kind of design to skew the overall representation in favor of the northern districts?”

Runft said no. “It almost is a … stealth deviation,” he said. He said the difference wasn’t apparent from an initial look at the plan, but showed up in close analysis. “Almost all of the significant deviation is up there,” he said.

After hearing oral arguments Monday, the justices took the case under advisement and will issue their ruling in the coming months.

But Justice Linda Copple-Trout pointed out a possible flaw in the northern over-representation argument. “For the record, Mr. Runft, you’re including Canyon County as North Idaho?” she asked, noting that the county’s residents might be surprised to hear that. Canyon County is adjacent to Ada County in southwestern Idaho.

Runft replied that just a portion of Canyon County is included in the 11th-most northern legislative district, to which Trout responded, “Apparently at least a portion of Canyon County has become North Idaho.”

Kane returned to the point when it was his turn to offer arguments. “Gem County and Canyon County would certainly not be included in northern Idaho,” he told the court. “A better dividing line would likely be where the time zone changes in Riggins.” The fact that that is in the middle of a legislative district just shows how hard it is to divide Idaho into regions, he said.

Kane offered his own mathematical arguments, noting that the 11 districts cited by Runft contain about a third of the state’s population, and make up 31 percent of the legislative districts. “The process evens out,” he said. “You have over two-thirds of the remaining seats left for two-thirds of the population.”

Idaho voters in 1994 changed the state constitution to take the redrawing of legislative district lines out of the hands of legislators themselves and give the job to a bipartisan commission. The commission settled on its first plan in August 2001, but it had an overall population deviation of 10.69 percent, and offered no reason for the variance. The state Supreme Court voided the plan, and the commission went back to work.

The next plan, in January 2002, had an 11.79 percent deviation, but listed detailed findings for each variation. However, it, too, was voided in court, and the commission convened again. In March 2002, its final plan had a 9.71 percent deviation, and the court upheld it – but indicated it could consider further challenges after the 2002 election if there was evidence of constitutional problems.

Five southern and eastern Idaho counties – Bonneville, Caribou, Oneida, Owyhee and Teton counties – sued to overturn the plan, along with current and former state legislators and candidates including Senate President Pro-tem Robert Geddes, R-Soda Springs; Rep. Bill Sali, R-Meridian; Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona; and former Sen. Stan Hawkins, R-Ucon.

Also joining in the challenge is one former North Idaho legislator, former Sen. Kathy Sims, R-Coeur d’Alene. Sims lost her Senate seat after the redistricting plan forced her into a contest against Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene, who defeated her in the 2002 Republican primary.

Even though the suit’s main contention is that North Idaho is over-represented, Runft said, Sims has remained a party. “She has stated that she thought the constitution should be adhered to,” he said. “It’s an issue of what’s right.”

In addition to the over-representation argument, Runft contended that the district plan also unnecessarily divided Kootenai County; unnecessarily divided 78 voting precincts, mostly in fast-growing Ada and Canyon counties; and violated a constitutional provision that he contended required a specific authorization from the Legislature any time a county was divided between legislative districts.

Kane argued that the provision merely requires the Legislature to write laws defining when and how counties can be divided, which it has done. If lawmakers still had a say over every county division, he said, the voter-passed amendment setting up the commission would be frustrated.

He told the justices, “The entire purpose of enactment … was to remove the Legislature from the process.”

Justice Roger Burdick questioned whether the court could order a new commission formed. “I mean, I would love to run the state, don’t get me wrong – but I’m not sure this constitutional provision would allow it,” he said.

District lines are redrawn every 10 years, after the census, to keep legislative representation true to the “one person, one vote” principle. The previous plan, enacted in the early 1990s, favored slow-growing eastern Idaho. With growth in the north and southwest, by the end of the decade that plan showed a population deviation between districts of 117 percent.

After the arguments, Secretary of State Ben Ysursa said, “My personal view would be the court would be reluctant to do it on their own. … Our Supreme Court historically has deferred to the Legislature when it was the Legislature’s task to reapportion, and I would expect them to defer to the commission when it’s the commission’s task.”