Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 72-1506 (2026)
Criteria governing plans.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Criteria governing plans.
Congressional and legislative redistricting plans considered by the commission, and plans adopted by the commission, shall be governed by the following criteria:
(1) The total state population as reported by the U.S. census bureau, and the population of subunits determined therefrom, shall be exclusive permissible data.
(2) To the maximum extent possible, districts shall preserve traditional neighborhoods and local communities of interest.
(3) Districts shall be substantially equal in population and should seek to comply with all applicable federal standards and statutes.
(4) To the maximum extent possible, the plan should avoid drawing districts that are oddly shaped.
(5) Division of counties shall be avoided whenever possible. In the event that a county must be divided, the number of such divisions, per county, should be kept to a minimum.
(6) To the extent that counties must be divided to create districts, such districts shall be composed of contiguous counties.
(7) District boundaries shall retain the local voting precinct boundary lines to the extent those lines comply with the provisions of section 34-306, Idaho Code. When the commission determines, by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members recorded in its minutes, that it cannot complete its duties for a legislative district by fully complying with the provisions of this subsection, this subsection shall not apply to the commission or legislative redistricting plan it shall adopt.
(8) Counties shall not be divided to protect a particular political party or a particular incumbent.
(9) When a legislative district contains more than one (1) county or a portion of a county, the counties or portion of a county in the district shall be directly connected by roads and highways which are designated as part of the interstate highway system, the United States highway system or the state highway system. When the commission determines, by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members recorded in its minutes, that it cannot complete its duties for a legislative district by fully complying with the provisions of this subsection, this subsection shall not apply to the commission or legislative redistricting plan it shall adopt.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case: Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho 2012).
Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho 2012). “Idaho Code § 72-1506 contains a wish list of what the Legislature would like a reapportionment commission to do in devising a reapportionment plan, but the provisions in that code section cannot be read to amend the specific language of Article III, § 5, which sets the standard…”
Pentico v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment, 504 P.3d 376 (Idaho 2022). “Turning to the statute in question, we hold that the Commission acted consistently with statutory criteria when it adopted a congressional reapportionment plan that split six precincts.”
Bingham Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment, 55 P.3d 863 (Idaho 2002). “The second policy advanced is that the plan honors Idaho Code § 72-1506 (2) by preserving traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest.”
Durst v. ID Comm. for Reapportionment, 505 P.3d 324 (Idaho 2022). “Further confusion exists because the phrase “by statute” has been previously interpreted by this Court in the following manner: [W]e believe I.C. § 72-1506 qualifies as the statute referenced in Idaho Const.”
Bonneville Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Bonneville Cnty. Commissioners v. Ysursa, 129 P.3d 1213 (Idaho 2005). “” Specifically, the answer depends on whether I.C. § 72-1506, is the statute contemplated in art.”
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004). “A number have adopted standards for redistricting, and measures designed to insulate the process from politics.”
In re Senate Jt. Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012). “See Idaho Code § 72-1506 ; Iowa Code § 42.4 (5); MontCode § 5-1-115; Or.”
Corinne Brown v. Sec'y of State of the State of Florida, 668 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2012). “§ 25-2(b) (prohibiting congressional districts drawn “so as to unduly favor a person or political party”; and requiring districts, to the extent possible, to be contiguous, compact, and of equal population, to respect political boundaries, and to avoid “submergence of an area in…”
In re Senate Jt. Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 2-B, 89 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 2012). “See Idaho Code § 72-1506 (8) ("Counties shall not be divided to protect a particular political party or a particular incumbent.”
Corinne Brown v. Sec'y of State of the State of Florida (11th Cir. 2012). “§ 25-2 (b) (prohibiting congressional districts drawn “so as to unduly favor a person or political party”; and requiring districts, to the extent possible, to be contiguous, compact, and of equal population, to respect political boundaries, and to avoid “submergence of an area…”
— Idaho Code § 72-1506(1) — 1 case
Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho 2012). “Idaho Code § 72-1506 contains a wish list of what the Legislature would like a reapportionment commission to do in devising a reapportionment plan, but the provisions in that code section cannot be read to amend the specific language of Article III, § 5, which sets the standard…”
— Idaho Code § 72-1506(2) — 4 cases
Bingham Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment, 55 P.3d 863 (Idaho 2002). “The second policy advanced is that the plan honors Idaho Code § 72-1506 (2) by preserving traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest.”
Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho 2012). “Idaho Code § 72-1506 contains a wish list of what the Legislature would like a reapportionment commission to do in devising a reapportionment plan, but the provisions in that code section cannot be read to amend the specific language of Article III, § 5, which sets the standard…”
Durst v. ID Comm. for Reapportionment, 505 P.3d 324 (Idaho 2022). “Further confusion exists because the phrase “by statute” has been previously interpreted by this Court in the following manner: [W]e believe I.C. § 72-1506 qualifies as the statute referenced in Idaho Const.”
Bonneville Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Bonneville Cnty. Commissioners v. Ysursa, 129 P.3d 1213 (Idaho 2005). “” Specifically, the answer depends on whether I.C. § 72-1506, is the statute contemplated in art.”
— Idaho Code § 72-1506(3) — 1 case
Durst v. ID Comm. for Reapportionment, 505 P.3d 324 (Idaho 2022). “Further confusion exists because the phrase “by statute” has been previously interpreted by this Court in the following manner: [W]e believe I.C. § 72-1506 qualifies as the statute referenced in Idaho Const.”
— Idaho Code § 72-1506(4) — 1 case
Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho 2012). “Idaho Code § 72-1506 contains a wish list of what the Legislature would like a reapportionment commission to do in devising a reapportionment plan, but the provisions in that code section cannot be read to amend the specific language of Article III, § 5, which sets the standard…”
— Idaho Code § 72-1506(5) — 3 cases
Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho 2012). “Idaho Code § 72-1506 contains a wish list of what the Legislature would like a reapportionment commission to do in devising a reapportionment plan, but the provisions in that code section cannot be read to amend the specific language of Article III, § 5, which sets the standard…”
Bingham Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment, 55 P.3d 863 (Idaho 2002). “The second policy advanced is that the plan honors Idaho Code § 72-1506 (2) by preserving traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest.”
Bonneville Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Bonneville Cnty. Commissioners v. Ysursa, 129 P.3d 1213 (Idaho 2005). “” Specifically, the answer depends on whether I.C. § 72-1506, is the statute contemplated in art.”
— Idaho Code § 72-1506(7) — 4 cases
Pentico v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment, 504 P.3d 376 (Idaho 2022). “Turning to the statute in question, we hold that the Commission acted consistently with statutory criteria when it adopted a congressional reapportionment plan that split six precincts.”
Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho 2012). “Idaho Code § 72-1506 contains a wish list of what the Legislature would like a reapportionment commission to do in devising a reapportionment plan, but the provisions in that code section cannot be read to amend the specific language of Article III, § 5, which sets the standard…”
Bingham Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment, 55 P.3d 863 (Idaho 2002). “The second policy advanced is that the plan honors Idaho Code § 72-1506 (2) by preserving traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest.”
Bonneville Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Bonneville Cnty. Commissioners v. Ysursa, 129 P.3d 1213 (Idaho 2005). “” Specifically, the answer depends on whether I.C. § 72-1506, is the statute contemplated in art.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.