Arizona Attorney General

Mark Brnovich

Translate   

 

AG Brnovich Argues Redistricting Case Before United States Supreme Court

AG Brnovich Argues Redistricting Case Before United States Supreme Court

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich presented oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court in the Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) this morning.

The case focuses on whether the AIRC violated the U.S. Constitution when drawing legislative district lines in 2010. Attorney General Brnovich represented the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office in the case, arguing that among other issues, the AIRC’s final maps created inequality in many districts, and undermined the “one-person, one-vote” principle. Before the High Court Attorney General Brnovich argued, "No statute can trump the Constitution.”

"The State of Arizona and the Secretary do not dispute the compliance of the Voting Rights Act was a legitimate or is a legitimate State interest." said Attorney General Brnovich.

"And we don't dispute that maybe there was a good motive on the part of drawing these districts. The problem is those motives don't matter when what you have is an undermining of the fundamental principle of one person, one vote."

This case is on appeal at the Supreme Court after a District Court upheld the maps. The dissenting opinion in the lower court case declared that the evidence showed systematic population inequality in the legislative district maps, and that the AIRC acted intentionally in seeking that inequality.

“I guess, you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” added Brnovich. “And so our position is, regardless of their intention, if they are doing it in a systemic way or intending to overpopulate certain districts, under-populate other districts, that is unconstitutional.” 

View the transcript of today’s oral arguments in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).