The case is Harris [corrected] v. AZ Redistricting Commission (14-232) and the three questions presented (in the jurisdictional statement)  deal with one person, one vote deviations to satisfy partisan advantage, deviations from one person one vote for partisan advantage to satisfy the (now defunct) preclearance requirements of the DOJ, and whether the redistricting commission erred in allegedly drawing Hispanic influence districts.  This could turn out to be a major case, although the first question seems to have been resolved by the Supreme Court’s summary affirmance in Larios v. Cox, and the second question seems mooted by Shelby County‘s killing of preclearance. I am not sure why the Court took this case rather than a simple summary affirmance, but we will find out soon enough. Perhaps the Court thought it should take the case while the larger Evenwel one person, one vote case was pending.

The full questions presented are:

Via Justin Levitt, here are the relevant documents:

District court

– Opinion rejecting challenges, concurrence, dissent (Apr. 29, 2014).

U.S. Supreme Court
– Notice of appeal (June 25).
– Jurisdictional statement (Aug. 25).
– Motion to dismiss or affirm (Nov. 13).
– Opposition (Dec. 2).

Thor Hearne, whose fraudulent fraud squad activities get full play in my book, The Voting Wars, brought this case.

This post has been updated.