## Facts

- Following the 1980 census, New Jersey enacted a congressional redistricting plan creating 14 districts.
- The average district population was 526,059; the largest district had 527,472 people and the smallest had 523,798 people.
- The maximum population deviation between districts was 0.6984% of the average district population.
- New Jersey voters challenged the plan, alleging that the population differences were avoidable and reflected partisan and other political choices rather than a genuine effort to achieve population equality.
- A three-judge federal district court held the plan unconstitutional under Article I, § 2, finding the deviations were not the product of a good-faith effort to achieve equality.
- State legislative officials appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Article I, § 2 permits a congressional redistricting plan with less than a 1% maximum population deviation when the differences could have been reduced through a good-faith effort.
2. Whether a state must justify each population variance in a congressional plan once plaintiffs show the variances were avoidable.
3. Whether deviations smaller than predictable census undercount should be treated as constitutionally insignificant as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court and held New Jersey’s congressional redistricting plan unconstitutional under Article I, § 2.
- The Court rejected any per se rule that a plan is constitutional merely because its deviations are smaller than likely census undercount.
- The Court accepted that plaintiffs showed the deviations could have been reduced or eliminated through a good-faith effort, based on the availability of alternative maps with smaller deviations.
- The Court held New Jersey failed to prove that each significant variance was necessary to achieve legitimate, consistently applied objectives, including asserted minority-voting-strength goals.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, § 2 requires congressional districts to achieve population equality “as nearly as is practicable.”
- Plaintiffs meet their initial burden by showing population differences could have been reduced or eliminated by a good-faith effort.
- Once that showing is made, the State must prove each significant population variance was necessary to achieve a legitimate, consistently applied goal, explaining specifically how and why the variance furthered that goal.
- There is no fixed numerical safe harbor for congressional district population deviations; avoidable deviations require justification.
- Deviations are not treated as the legal equivalent of zero merely because they are smaller than predictable census undercount.

## Conclusion

The Court held that strict population equality governs congressional redistricting under Article I, § 2 and that even very small, avoidable population deviations are unconstitutional unless the State proves the specific variances were necessary to accomplish legitimate, consistently applied districting objectives.


Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983)