On July 8, a U.S. District Court in Arizona asked both sides in one of the current legislative redistricting cases to file supplemental briefs. The order asks both sides to comment on the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, the decision that struck down part of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Arizona has a non-partisan Independent Redistricting Commission that draws legislative district boundaries as well as U.S. House boundaries. The current legislative redistricting districts very somewhat significantly in population. The lawsuit Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, cv-12-894, argues that the districts aren’t equal enough in population to be constitutional. The Redistricting Commission had defended its districts by saying the federal Voting Rights Act requires protection for racial and ethnic minorities, and that the Commission had to build some population inequality into its districts to help protect those minorities. Now, the plaintiffs will probably argue that this rationale is weakened, because Arizona is no longer required to get permission from the U.S. Justice Department for its redistricting plans.