SCHROEDER, Justice.
This is the second challenge to the Idaho Commission on Reapportionment’s proposed redistricting plan. This Court previously voided the first plan on the basis that the 10.69% deviation in representation between districts, without justification, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Issues present in this case are whether the plan submitted by the Commission in response is unconstitutional under both state and federal constitutions, as well as in violation of several Idaho statutes.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1994 the Idaho State Constitution was amended to create a bipartisan citizens’ commission that was assigned the task of redistricting. The Idaho Commission on Reapportionment (the Commission) is required to file a plan approved by four of its six members with the Secretary of State within at least ninety days of organization, which is to remain in effect until a new plan is required or amended by court order. The Idaho legislature enacted statutes providing guidance to the Commission in the task of redistricting. Idaho Code §§ 72-1501-1508.
On August 28, 2001, the Commission filed Plan L66 with the Secretary of State. According to the 2000 Census, Idaho’s population is 1,293,953 people. With 35 legislative districts in the state, the ideal district population is 36,970 people. In Plan L66, the least populated district contained 34,928 people, 5.52% below the ideal size. The largest district contained 38,881 people and was 5.17% above the ideal size. The maximum population deviation in that plan was, therefore, 10.69%, which was presumptively discriminatory under U.S. Supreme Court case law. The State did not advance a ‘rational state policy’ necessary to justify a population deviation of over 10%. The Court held the plan unconstitutional and ordered the Commission to reconvene and adopt a plan that met constitutional standards of equal protection.
[872]*872On January 8, 2002, the Commission adopted Plan L91, which contains a population deviation even greater than that contained in the original plan. The Commission prepared a Final Report, including Findings and Conclusions that explain the rationale behind the adoption of that particular plan. The largest district is 6.26% above the ideal size with 39,286 people, while the smallest district is 5.53% below the ideal size with 34,927 people. The maximum population deviation in Plan L91 is 11.79%, which, as noted, is greater than the population deviation in the plan that was previously voided by this Court.
The Bingham County Board of County Commissioners (Bingham County) filed a petition challenging Plan L91. Subsequently, residents of Bannock County filed a petition also challenging the Plan. Residents of Madison County, the petitioners in the first redistrieting appeal, have filed an amicus brief urging the Court to adopt a specific plan. The Court has consolidated these petitions for hearing.
II.
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
The plan is presumptively unconstitutional because its population deviation is 11.79%. Any redistricting plan that contains a population deviation above 10% is prima facie discriminatory. This is in accordance with the constitutional goal of “one person, one vote.” According to the Commission, Plan L91 is the result of an attempt to keep together traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest while avoiding oddly shaped districts. The deviation in population results from the decision to maintain the integrity of Madison and Fremont Counties.
“The Equal Protection Clause requires states to ‘make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts ... as nearly of equal population as is practicable.’” Smith v. Idaho Commission on Redistricting, 136 Idaho 542, 38 P.3d 121 (2001)(quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1390, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 536 (1964)). A redistricting plan that deviates more than 10% in population among the districts is prima facie unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 2695-96, 77 L.Ed.2d 214, 221-22 (1983). “The ultimate inquiry,” after a prima facie case of discrimination has been shown, is “whether the legislature’s plan ‘may reasonably be said to advance a rational state policy’ and, if so, ‘whether the population disparities among the districts that have resulted from the pursuit of this plan exceed constitutional limits.’ ” Id. at 843, 103 S.Ct. at 2696, 77 L.Ed.2d at 222 (quoting Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 328, 93 S.Ct. 979, 987, 35 L.Ed.2d 320, 332 (1973)).
In the 1980’s, this Court held that a redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause, stating that “[a] plan with larger disparities in population ... creates a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the State.” Hellar v. Cenarrusa, 106 Idaho 586, 589, 682 P.2d 539, 542 (citing Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 444, 87 S.Ct. 569, 572, 17 L.Ed.2d 501, 504-05 (1967)). Unlike Plan L66, for which the state presented no evidence to justify the 10.69%, the Commission does seek to justify the greater disparity in L91 as the result of an advancement of rational state policies.
The Commission asserts that L91 advances the policy contained in Article III, § 5 of the Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code § 72-1506(5) by not splitting Madison and Fremont Counties. The second policy advanced is that the plan honors Idaho Code § 72-1506(2) by preserving traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest.
Clearly there is a state interest in keeping counties whole. E.g., I.C. § 72-1506(5). Keeping Madison and Fremont Counties whole is consistent with that policy. However, both Bingham and Bannock counties have been split into three districts. The political integrity of Madison and Fremont Counties has been addressed. The same principle has not been applied to Bingham and Bannock Counties.
The second policy advanced by the Commission is that Plan L91 satisfies the goal set [873]*873forth in I.C. § 72-1506(2) by preserving traditional neighborhoods and local communities of interest. The Commission admits that Plans L76 and L69 both contained population deviations of less than 10%, but that these plans would have divided Fremont County by placing Island Park in District 35, a geographically large district that stretches from Challis to near Island Park. These plans were proposed, but the residents in Madison and Fremont County wished to retain Island Park within their district, and the Commission felt that the 11.79% population deviation was acceptable in light of this decision.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SCHROEDER, Justice.
This is the second challenge to the Idaho Commission on Reapportionment’s proposed redistricting plan. This Court previously voided the first plan on the basis that the 10.69% deviation in representation between districts, without justification, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Issues present in this case are whether the plan submitted by the Commission in response is unconstitutional under both state and federal constitutions, as well as in violation of several Idaho statutes.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1994 the Idaho State Constitution was amended to create a bipartisan citizens’ commission that was assigned the task of redistricting. The Idaho Commission on Reapportionment (the Commission) is required to file a plan approved by four of its six members with the Secretary of State within at least ninety days of organization, which is to remain in effect until a new plan is required or amended by court order. The Idaho legislature enacted statutes providing guidance to the Commission in the task of redistricting. Idaho Code §§ 72-1501-1508.
On August 28, 2001, the Commission filed Plan L66 with the Secretary of State. According to the 2000 Census, Idaho’s population is 1,293,953 people. With 35 legislative districts in the state, the ideal district population is 36,970 people. In Plan L66, the least populated district contained 34,928 people, 5.52% below the ideal size. The largest district contained 38,881 people and was 5.17% above the ideal size. The maximum population deviation in that plan was, therefore, 10.69%, which was presumptively discriminatory under U.S. Supreme Court case law. The State did not advance a ‘rational state policy’ necessary to justify a population deviation of over 10%. The Court held the plan unconstitutional and ordered the Commission to reconvene and adopt a plan that met constitutional standards of equal protection.
[872]*872On January 8, 2002, the Commission adopted Plan L91, which contains a population deviation even greater than that contained in the original plan. The Commission prepared a Final Report, including Findings and Conclusions that explain the rationale behind the adoption of that particular plan. The largest district is 6.26% above the ideal size with 39,286 people, while the smallest district is 5.53% below the ideal size with 34,927 people. The maximum population deviation in Plan L91 is 11.79%, which, as noted, is greater than the population deviation in the plan that was previously voided by this Court.
The Bingham County Board of County Commissioners (Bingham County) filed a petition challenging Plan L91. Subsequently, residents of Bannock County filed a petition also challenging the Plan. Residents of Madison County, the petitioners in the first redistrieting appeal, have filed an amicus brief urging the Court to adopt a specific plan. The Court has consolidated these petitions for hearing.
II.
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
The plan is presumptively unconstitutional because its population deviation is 11.79%. Any redistricting plan that contains a population deviation above 10% is prima facie discriminatory. This is in accordance with the constitutional goal of “one person, one vote.” According to the Commission, Plan L91 is the result of an attempt to keep together traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest while avoiding oddly shaped districts. The deviation in population results from the decision to maintain the integrity of Madison and Fremont Counties.
“The Equal Protection Clause requires states to ‘make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts ... as nearly of equal population as is practicable.’” Smith v. Idaho Commission on Redistricting, 136 Idaho 542, 38 P.3d 121 (2001)(quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1390, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 536 (1964)). A redistricting plan that deviates more than 10% in population among the districts is prima facie unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 2695-96, 77 L.Ed.2d 214, 221-22 (1983). “The ultimate inquiry,” after a prima facie case of discrimination has been shown, is “whether the legislature’s plan ‘may reasonably be said to advance a rational state policy’ and, if so, ‘whether the population disparities among the districts that have resulted from the pursuit of this plan exceed constitutional limits.’ ” Id. at 843, 103 S.Ct. at 2696, 77 L.Ed.2d at 222 (quoting Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 328, 93 S.Ct. 979, 987, 35 L.Ed.2d 320, 332 (1973)).
In the 1980’s, this Court held that a redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause, stating that “[a] plan with larger disparities in population ... creates a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the State.” Hellar v. Cenarrusa, 106 Idaho 586, 589, 682 P.2d 539, 542 (citing Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 444, 87 S.Ct. 569, 572, 17 L.Ed.2d 501, 504-05 (1967)). Unlike Plan L66, for which the state presented no evidence to justify the 10.69%, the Commission does seek to justify the greater disparity in L91 as the result of an advancement of rational state policies.
The Commission asserts that L91 advances the policy contained in Article III, § 5 of the Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code § 72-1506(5) by not splitting Madison and Fremont Counties. The second policy advanced is that the plan honors Idaho Code § 72-1506(2) by preserving traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest.
Clearly there is a state interest in keeping counties whole. E.g., I.C. § 72-1506(5). Keeping Madison and Fremont Counties whole is consistent with that policy. However, both Bingham and Bannock counties have been split into three districts. The political integrity of Madison and Fremont Counties has been addressed. The same principle has not been applied to Bingham and Bannock Counties.
The second policy advanced by the Commission is that Plan L91 satisfies the goal set [873]*873forth in I.C. § 72-1506(2) by preserving traditional neighborhoods and local communities of interest. The Commission admits that Plans L76 and L69 both contained population deviations of less than 10%, but that these plans would have divided Fremont County by placing Island Park in District 35, a geographically large district that stretches from Challis to near Island Park. These plans were proposed, but the residents in Madison and Fremont County wished to retain Island Park within their district, and the Commission felt that the 11.79% population deviation was acceptable in light of this decision.
It is true that maintaining traditional neighborhoods and local communities is a goal under I.C. § 72-1506(2). However, it appears that the communities of interest of Madison County and Fremont County have been considered over those of Bingham and Bannock County, which argue that Plan L91 splits traditional neighborhoods and local communities within their districts. This is particularly notable in light of the fact that the split of Island Park would have encompassed some 828 people, whereas the three-way splits of Bingham and Bannock counties involve substantially more people.
This Court ordered the Commission to submit any proposed plans that contained a population deviation of less than 10%. The Commission attached twenty-one such plans that were considered by the Commission. The population disparity in these plans varies from as low as 4.54% (Plan L06) to as high as 9.98% (Plan L68). The Commission sent out public notices regarding many plans, including plans L59-66, L69, and L76. It appears that Plans L69 and L76 were the two plans most seriously considered by the Commission. The population deviation in these two plans was 9.98% and 9.71%, respectively. These plans were not adopted, the Commission argues, because they would have split Fremont County by placing Island Park in District 35, and the residents of Madison and Fremont County preferred not to split the counties.
Some redistricting plans that have been drafted to maintain the integrity of political subdivisions have withstood constitutional scrutiny despite population deviations in excess of 10%. See, e.g., Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973). In Mahan, the United States Supreme Court upheld a redistricting scheme with a population deviation of 16.4% because it found that the plan at issue maintained the integrity of political subdivisions. In the present case, however, it appears that the integrity of some political subdivisions has been maintained, while the political integrity of others has not been maintained. The justification for the deviation is not sufficient when it is based upon a policy that has not been applied consistently. This inequality without sufficient justification does not withstand scrutiny even in light of Mahan.
III.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDA- [¶] CODE § 72-1506(5) AND ARTICLE III, § 5 OF THE IDAHO STATE CONSTITUTION
Bingham and Bannock County argue that the redistricting statute, Idaho Code § 72-1506(5) is unconstitutional, specifically that it violates the provisions of Art. Ill, § 5 of the Idaho Constitution, which provides the following:
A senatorial or representative district, when more than one county shall constitute the same, shall be composed of contiguous counties, and a county may be divided in creating districts only to the extent it is reasonably determined by statute that counties must be divided to create senatorial and representative districts which comply with the constitution of the United States. A county may be divided into more than one legislative district when districts are wholly contained within a single county. No floterial district shall be created. Multi-member districts may be created in any district composed of more than one county only to the extent that two representatives may be elected from a district from which one senator is elected. The provisions of this section shall apply to any apportionment adopted following the 1990 decennial census.
I.C. § 72-1506 provides the following:
Criteria governing plans. — Congressional and legislative redistricting plans consid[874]*874ered 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 should be avoided whenever possible. Counties should be divided into districts not wholly contained within that county only to the extent reasonably necessary to meet the requirements of the equal population principle. 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 should retain, as far as practicable, the local voting precinct boundary lines to the extent those lines comply with the provisions of section 34-306, Idaho Code.
(8) Counties shall not be divided to protect a particular political party or a particular incumbent
It is clear that if the State Constitution and a statute conflict, the State Constitutional provision prevails. It is also clear that if a State Constitutional provision or statute conflicts with the United States Constitution, the United States Constitutional provision prevails.
Article III § 5 of the Idaho Constitution limits the division of counties to create legislative districts to those situations in which splitting the county is necessary to meet standards of equal protection; that is, one person, one vote. Obviously, to the extent that a county contains more people than allowed in a legislative district, the county must be split. However, this does not mean that a county may be divided and aligned with other counties to achieve ideal district size if that ideal district size may be achieved by internal division of the county. Whether desirable or not, that is the meaning of Article III, § 5. A county may not be divided and parsed out to areas outside the county to achieve ideal district size, if that goal is attainable without extending the district outside the county. Similarly, the other considerations set forth in § 72-1506 are subordinate to the limitations of Article III, § 5.
In sum, the need to comply with the standards of equal protection in the United States Constitution is paramount. In approaching that goal, Article III, § 5 of the Idaho Constitution is the beginning point. A plan must begin with the premise that the counties will not be split unless it is necessary to meet standards of equal protection. If it is necessary to go outside county boundaries to form a district, considerations in § 72-1506 come into play, such as joining communities of interest and avoidance of oddly shaped districts. Those are factors to be considered, but they are subordinate to the Constitutional standard of voter equality and the restrictions in the Idaho Constitution upon splitting counties except to achieve that voter equality.
IV.
THE DIVISIONS IN L91
The petitioners argue that L91 violates Article III, § 5 of the Idaho Constitution. It is clear that splitting some counties is necessary to create districts that comply with equal protection principles in the U.S. Constitution. The next issue is whether there are divisions within L91 that are not necessary to meet equal protection standards in violation of the Article III, § 5 restraint upon dividing counties.
It is undisputed that the following counties must be split under a new redistrieting scheme: Ada, Bannock, Bingham, Bonneville, Canyon, Kootenai, and Twin Falls. Each has too large a population for the ideal district. [875]*875It is apparent, also, in a state with 44 counties and 35 legislative districts that joining counties or parts of counties with one another is necessary. However, to the extent possible, counties should not be split, or the splits should be kept to the minimum possible while meeting equal protection standards. Analysis of L91 yields interesting information.
Plan L91 divides Power County into two legislative districts Districts 27 and 29. The Commission found that Power County’s population was insufficient to constitute a single district. Therefore, it could have been combined with another county or counties and not have been divided.
However, in order to address the populations of Power, Cassia, Oneida, Franklin, Bear Lake, Caribou, Bingham and Bannock Counties in a way that meet both the one person/one vote requirements of the United States Constitution and the community of interest provision of Idaho Code § 72-1506(2) the Commission divided the population of Power County between two districts in the proposed plan. The Power County population in American Falls and the northeastern portion of the county was combined in District 29 with the Fort Hall precinct in Bingham County and the northern portions of Bannock County. Although the Commission considered many plans that did not divide Power County, this approach was necessary to accommodate the remainder of Bannock County’s population after District 30 was created out of the Pocatello area and southern Bannock County was placed in District 28 with Oneida, Franklin, Bear Lake and Caribou Counties to create a more compact district. The remainder of Power County was combined with Cassia and portions of Bingham County to satisfy the contiguous requirement of the Idaho Constitution and to provide additional population to satisfy the one person/one vote requirement of the United States Constitution. This division of Power County also kept all populated portions of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in one legislative district in furtherance of the “communities of interest” provision of Idaho Code § 72-1506(2).
Plan L91 divides Bannock County into three legislative districts Districts 28, 29, and 30. Bannock County’s population requires that it be split. However, the Commission made the following findings regarding Bannock County:
Bannock County has sufficient population for two districts wholly contained within the county with no remainder to be combined with another county or counties. The approved plan creates one district wholly contained within the county. This is District 30 which is most of Pocatello. Instead of creating a second district from the remaining Bannock County population, as was considered by the Commission, the adopted plan divided that remaining Bannock County population between two other districts. Southern Bannock County was combined in District 28 with Oneida, Franklin, Bear Lake and Caribou Counties to create a more compact district with a greater common community of interest than in many other plans considered by the Commission (Idaho Code § 72-1506(2)). The northern portion of Bannock County not in District 30 was combined with the Fort Hall precinct in Bingham County and with northeastern Power County for the reasons stated in the Power County finding. This allocation of Bannock County between Districts 28, 29 and 30 creates districts which satisfy the one person/one vote requirement of the United States Constitution. Other plans were not adopted by the Commission because some felt that District 28 in those places, which combined Oneida, Franklin, Bear Lake, Caribou, eastern Bonneville and Teton Counties, violated Idaho Code § 72-1506 because it was too oddly shaped and did not constitute a local community of interest. (emphasis added).
In Plan L91 Bingham County is divided into three districts — Districts 27, 29, and 31. Bingham County’s population requires that it be split. The Commission made the following findings regarding Bingham County:
Bingham County’s population is too great for one self-contained district and too little for two self-contained districts. Therefore, Bingham has to be divided to comply with [876]*876the United States Constitution. The ideal would be to create one wholly self-contained district in Bingham County and combine the portions of the county with another county or counties in another district. The approved plan does not do this. Rather, Bingham County is divided among three districts, each combining other counties or portions of counties. Most of western Bingham County west of the Snake River is combined with Cassia and a portion of Power County in District 27. These areas have a common agricultural community of interest, although the Bingham County Commissions made clear in their desire that most of this area would be kept with the Blackfoot area. The Commission found no reasonable way to accommodate this request and still comply with the one person/one vote requirement of the United States Constitution. The Fort Hall Precinct in southern Bingham County is placed with the other populated portion of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in northern Bannock County and eastern Power County for the reasons stated in the Power County finding. Blackfoot and the remainder of Bingham is placed in District 31 with those portions of Bonneville which surround Idaho Falls to the west and south. These areas have common agricultural and other communities of interest along with the Interstate 15 corridor between Blackfoot and Idaho Falls, (emphasis added).
It appears that the Commission’s focus in splitting these counties is to maintain traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest while avoiding oddly shaped districts and still maintaining the one person/one vote standard. Those are laudable statutory goals, but they are subordinate to the threshold standard of Article III, § 5 that counties may not be divided unnecessarily. That is the baseline for consideration within the state system — trumped only by the Constitutional need for equal protection.
V.
OTHER ISSUES
The petitioners have raised other issues concerning the validity of L91. The Court will address these issues for possible guidance to the Commission in further planning.
A. Idaho Code § 72-1506(4)
Section 1506(4) states that “to the maximum extent possible, the plan should avoid drawing districts that are oddly shaped.” The petitioners argue that District 27 is an odd “C” shape. Because there were other proposed plans that did not create an oddly shaped District 27, the petitioners argue, Plan 91 violates this statute.
The statute does not define the term “oddly shaped.” In Hellar v. Cenarrusa, 106 Idaho at 591, 682 P.2d at 544, this Court stated that “shoestring connections, odd-shaped narrow districts, dispersion of urban populations into larger rural areas and the unnecessary splitting of established areas” could be evidence of gerrymandering. In the racial gerrymandering context, the United States Supreme Court has identified several factors that may lead a court to believe a district is oddly shaped. These include the degree of a district’s compaction; whether the various portions of the district are contiguous with one another; and the extent to which districts respect political subdivisions. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 647, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 2826-27, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 528-29 (1993). Federal courts have held that districts are oddly shaped when they are “distorted” or “elongated.” Diaz v. Silver, 978 F.Supp. 96, 118 (E.D.N.Y.1997).
The Commission correctly argues that the district does not have a “shoestring section” or a narrow shape. It contains mostly rural areas. It is a fairly large district but not very far out of the ordinary when compared to other districts. It is not very “elongated.” The district does, however, contain a “C” shape at one end that gives it somewhat of a different shape. The question then is whether this by itself creates an oddly shaped district. There is no evidence that residents of the communities within the district contain different interests or that the district was drawn in order to discriminate. Further, the statute does not forbid the creation of an “oddly shaped” district, it merely states that this should be avoided when possible. Look[877]*877ing at the other proposed plans in the record, District 27 looks more or less the same. District 27 does not violate this statute.
B. Idaho Code § 72-1506(7)
Section 72-1506(7) states that “district boundaries should remain, as far as practicable, the local voting precinct boundary lines to the extent those lines comply with the provisions of section 34^306, Idaho Code.” The petitioners argue that Plan 91 divides two precincts in Bingham County and places one in District 27 and one in District 29. Because there were other proposed plans that did not split the precinct, the petitioners argue that Plan 91 violates this statute.
The Commission admits that some precincts have been divided, but that some precincts must be divided under any new redistricting scheme. This is certainly true. The fact that a plan splits one precinct is not fatal under this statute. Some precincts are going to have to be split, and the statute only requires that this be avoided “as far as practicable.”
C. Idaho Code § 72-1506(2)
Section 72-1506(2) states that “to the maximum extent possible, districts shall preserve traditional neighborhoods and local communities of interest.” The Bingham County petitioners argue that the communities of Riverside, Moreland, Rockford, Thomas, and Pingree, which are located near Blackfoot, will become part of District 27 with Cassia County, while Blackfoot will become part of District 31. Because there were other proposed plans that did not split these communities, the Bingham County petitioners argue that the plan violates the statute. The Bannock County petitioners argue that the communities of Pocatello, Inkom, McCammon, and Lava Hot Springs should have been kept together.
The statute does not define what a “traditional neighborhood” or a “local community of interest” is. The United States Supreme Court has offered the following guidance; including whether the residents in the district regard themselves as a community; whether the residents in the district live in a urban or rural areas; and whether tentacles, appendages, or parts of the district share common transportation lines and media sources. See, e.g., Lawyer v. Dep’t of Justice, 521 U.S. 567, 581-82, 117 S.Ct. 2186, 2195, 138 L.Ed.2d 669, 682-84 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 966, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 1955, 135 L.Ed.2d 248, 261-62 (1996).
The Commission argues that it worked to satisfy the concerns addressed in the challenge to the first redistricting plan in creating the current plan. For example, the Commission argues that the communities of Firth, Shelley, and Basalt, which were previously divided, are now placed in a single district, and that the Fort Hall Indian Reservation has been maintained as a single district. The Commission also argues that Riverside, Thomas, Moreland, Pingree and Rockford have been kept together. It is clear that the closest major population area to these small communities is Blackfoot and that Blackfoot has been placed in a different district than these communities.
When considering the Bannock County petition, it is important to note that the areas in dispute share a common media, they are all in the Sixth Judicial District, and they are connected by Interstate 84. The Commission also argues that from 1966 through 1992 that Bannock County had at all times been joined with one or more, and currently all, of the counties of Oneida, Franklin, Bear Lake and Caribou. The plan appears to honor traditional neighborhoods. However, any decision on the validity of these alignments is moot in light of the Court’s decision concerning the effect on Article III, § 5 of the Idaho Constitution.
VI.
CONCLUSION
Plan L91 contains a population deviation of 11.79%, well above a prima facie showing of a violation of equal protection standards. The Commission justifies this deviation on the basis that it occurs as the result of an advancement of rational state policies, particularly maintenance of the integrity of political subdivisions Madison and Fremont Counties. [878]*878Article III, § 5 of the Idaho Constitution prohibits the division of counties, except to meet the constitutional standards of equal protection. The prohibition was honored by the Commission with respect to Madison and Fremont Counties, but Article III, § 5 was not honored as to Bingham and Bannock Counties. In those instances, the idea of joining communities of interest has prevailed over the requirement of maintaining county integrity except to achieve equal protection. The basis for justifying the population deviation in L91 is not consistent with other decisions made by the Commission which did not honor the integrity of political subdivisions.
The Commission is directed to reconvene to adopt a redistricting plan consistent with constitutional standards of equal protection and to the extent possible the dictates of Article III, § 5 of the Idaho Constitution. In the event the delay occasioned by this directive interferes with the time limits for candidate filing, the Court will consider any requests for remedial order. The petitioners are awarded costs. No attorney fees are allowed.
Chief Justice TROUT, Justices KIDWELL and EISMANN, concur.