It doesn't matter how many people are currently sitting on the Supreme Court when you get all of them to vote your way.
A unanimous Supreme Court says an Arizona commission did not violate the principle of one-person, one-vote when it redrew the state's legislative districts in a way that created some with more residents than others.
A Republican group brought the case to the Supreme Court on the complaint that the districts were not precisely equal. But the court ruled that differences of less than ten percent were permissible unless challengers could show the lines were being shifted for some unconstitutional reason. The biggest difference between districts in the Arizona plan is about eight percent, and the reason for making slight differences between districts was chiefly to abide by the Voting Rights Act. Crucially, this was not regarded as a partisan, unconstitutional reason for variance.
Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the one-person, one-vote principle "does not demand mathematical perfection."
The real reason the Republican group brought the case? Because the board that created the plan in 2000 tried to be fair in its creation of legislative boundaries. That they also tried to do it in a way that respected the Voting Rights Act makes these lines radioactive to the GOP. Republicans were anxious to throw the job back to the state legislature so that Arizona could be diced up with decidedly unfair boundaries designed to eternally lock in Republican control.
This is the second time the Arizona boundaries have stood up to court challenge. In another case last year, Republicans tried to make the case that only the legislature had the authority to draw the lines. The Supreme Court turned that one down, as well.
But don't worry. Republicans will find another reason to gerrymander Arizona. Fair boundaries? That can not stand!