| Litigants: | Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission |
| Arguedate: | December 8 |
| Argueyear: | 2015 |
| Decidedate: | April 20 |
| Decideyear: | 2016 |
| Fullname: | Wesley W. Harris, et al., appellants v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. |
| Usvol: | 578 |
| Uspage: | ___ |
| Parallelcitations: | 136 S. Ct. 1301; 194 L. Ed. 2d 497 |
| Docket: | 14-232 |
| Oralargument: | https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-232 |
| Opinionannouncement: | http://www.oyez.org/cases/YYYY-YYYY/YYYY/YY-Docket/opinion/--> |
| Prior: | 993 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (D. Ariz. 2014); probable jurisdiction noted, 135 S. Ct. 2926 (2015). |
| Holding: | Population deviations for legislative districts predominantly reflected commission's good-faith efforts to comply with Voting Rights Act and obtain preclearance from Department of Justice. United States District Court for the District of Arizona affirmed. |
| Majority: | Breyer |
| Joinmajority: | unanimous |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const., Amdt. XIV |
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the one person, one vote principle under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a state's redistricting commission slight variances in drawing of legislative districts provided that the variance does not exceed 10 percent.[1] The Court found that the map, created by a bipartisan commission on the basis of the 2010 census, was constitutional.[2]