Facts
- After the 1970 Census, Connecticut’s legislature missed a state constitutional deadline to reapportion its 30-seat Senate and 151-seat House.
- State constitutional procedures shifted mapmaking first to a bipartisan commission and then to a three-member bipartisan Board composed of two Superior Court judges and one state Supreme Court justice.
- The Board’s plan became law upon publication by the Secretary of State in December 1971.
- The Senate plan achieved near-equal district populations (mean deviation about 0.45%).
- The House plan respected town boundaries and had an average population deviation of about 1.9% with a maximum deviation of 7.83%.
- The Board intentionally applied a “political fairness” approach seeking a rough proportional reflection of statewide Democratic and Republican voting strength.
- Democratic plaintiffs challenged the plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and as violating the Fourteenth Amendment due to population deviations; a three-judge federal district court invalidated the plan.
Issues
- Whether the House plan’s population deviations (average about 1.9%, maximum 7.83%) established a prima facie Equal Protection violation as invidious discrimination.
- Whether a reapportionment plan is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because it was designed to approximate statewide party strength through a “political fairness” approach.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the three-judge district court and upheld the reapportionment plan.
- Minor deviations from mathematical equality in state legislative districts, including the House’s average 1.9% and maximum 7.83% deviations, did not establish a prima facie case of invidious discrimination.
- A plan seeking a rough approximation of statewide political strength between the two major parties through a “political fairness” approach was not unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause on that basis alone.
- Justice Brennan dissented, joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall.
Legal Principles
- State legislative redistricting does not require the same level of population equality demanded for congressional districts; small deviations do not, by themselves, show invidious discrimination.
- Population deviations must be assessed in context, including legitimate state policies such as respecting political subdivision boundaries.
- Consideration of partisan effects in state legislative districting is not automatically unconstitutional; partisan balancing aimed at rough proportionality is not per se an Equal Protection violation.
- To invalidate a state legislative plan on Equal Protection grounds, challengers must show more than minor population deviations and ordinary political consequences; they must show unjustifiable, intentional vote dilution.
Conclusion
The Court upheld Connecticut’s state legislative plan, holding that relatively small population deviations in House districts and the use of a partisan-balancing “political fairness” objective did not, without more, amount to invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment.