Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a primary indication of intentional discrimination against a geographic region was a lack of adherence to established political subdivision boundaries
• explaining that when “no fundamental right [is] at stake, the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution imposes a stricter standard than its federal counterpart”
• stating that, depending on review level, fit between state’s means and ends ranges from substantial relationship (low end) to close fit (high end) and that purpose must be implemented with least restrictive alternative
• “Depending upon the primacy of the interest involved, the State will have a greater or lesser burden in justifying its” questioned action
• “The state must consistently enforce the constitutional article VI, section 6 requirements of contiguity, compactness, and relative integration of socioeconomic areas in its redistricting.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State
  Alaska Supreme Court· 1975-03-12· cited 7×