Source: http://redistricting.lls.edu/states-ID.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:00:54+00:00

Document:
The state's first independent commission, convened in the spring of 2011, conducted public hearings through early September. The commission reached agreement on September 23, but not by its September 6 deadline; the late agreement became guidance for a new commission, created by order of the Secretary of State on September 13.
Congress: On October 17, the new commission issued a congressional plan.
State leg.: On October 14, the new commission issued a state legislative plan; on January 18, the plan was struck down by the state Supreme Court. The Sept. 13 commission was reconvened to redraw lines; though partisan officials brought litigation to force the removal of two commissioners, on January 25, the state Supreme Court affirmed the Secretary of State's refusal to replace those sitting commissioners. On January 27, the commission unanimously approved a new state legislative plan.
Idaho's congressional and state legislative lines are drawn by a six-member independent commission, created in 1994.
Each of the four legislative leaders (majority and minority leader in each legislative house) each select one commissioner, and the chairs of the two largest political parties each select one commissioner, with an eye to geographic diversity. The state constitution provides that no commissioner may be an elected or appointed official in Idaho when appointed to the commission. [Idaho Const. art. III, § 2(2)] State law further prohibits those who have been registered lobbyists within the last year -- or elected officials or district, county, or state party officers within the last two years -- from serving as a commissioner. [Idaho Code § 72-1502] These latter limitations may be altered by the state legislature.
Members of the first commission of 2011 are listed here; members of the second commission are listed here.
Census data were delivered to Idaho on March 10, 2011.
The schedule of hearings -- along with links for streaming video of live hearings -- is here. Archived materials and video from past hearings are also available here.
The commission's website links to an online version of Maptitude for Redistricting, which allows members of the public to draw and submit plans to the Commission.
Like all states, Idaho must comply with constitutional equal population requirements and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Denney v. Ysursa, No. 39570-2012 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the Secretary of State's refusal to replace commissioners nominated by the Speaker of the Idaho House and the chairman of the Idaho Republicans, at the request of those two officials.
- Attorney General's interpretation of authority to remove commissioners (Jan. 20, 2012).
- Petition for writ of mandamus (Jan. 24) and supplement (Jan. 25).
- Order dismissing petition (Jan. 25).
The latest: On January 25, the Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners had not established a clear right under state law to the relief they were seeking -- an order requiring the Secretary of State to replace the two identified commissioners.
In re Constitutionality of Idaho Legislative Reapportionment Plan of 2002, No. 39127-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the constitutionality of the existing districts, given the first independent commission's failure to submit proposed districts before the relevant deadline.
- Complaint (Sept. 7, 2011).
- Order denying request for writ of mandate to reconvene commission (Sept. 9).
- Brief in support of petition (Sept. 23).
- Order declaring 2002 districts unconstitutional (Oct. 6).
The latest: On September 9, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that it had no power to require the independent commission to reconvene to draw districts for the current cycle, but noted that the Secretary of State could issue an order convening a new commission. Separately, on October 6, the court determined that 2002 districts were unconstitutionally malapportioned based on the most recent Census.
Frasure v. Idaho Redistricting Commission, No. 39128-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court requesting declaratory relief concerning the interpretation of state redistricting law, and requesting that the court adopt congressional and legislative districts.
- Order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The latest: On September 9, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that it had no original jurisdiction to clarify state law (such a case would have to proceed first in trial court), and dismissed the case.
Twin Falls County v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, No. 39373-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative plan, based on allegedly insufficient attention to county boundaries.
- Petition (Nov. 16, 2011), response (Dec. 21).
- Petitioners' brief (Dec. 27).
- Amicus curiae brief (Dec. 21).
- Decision striking down state plan (Jan. 18).
The latest: On January 18, over a strong dissent, the state Supreme Court struck down the state redistricting plan, finding that it unlawfully split more counties than necessary. The state's independent commission was directed to reconvene in order to draw a substitute plan.
Benewah County v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, No. 39432-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative plan, based on multiple provisions of state law, including unnecessary division of counties.
- Petition (Dec. 7, 2011) and brief in support (Dec. 28).
- State's brief (Jan. 6).
The latest: Upon the decision in Twin Falls County, above, this case was apparently dismissed as moot.

References: § 2
 § 72
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.