## Facts

- After the 2000 Census, Georgia enacted new state House (2001) and state Senate (2002) redistricting plans.
- Georgia experienced rapid population growth in suburban and exurban areas around Atlanta, while many rural and some inner-city areas grew more slowly.
- The challenged House and Senate plans had maximum total population deviations just under 10% (approximately 9.98%).
- Plaintiffs (Georgia voters) alleged the deviations were not incidental but were intentionally engineered to dilute votes in fast-growing suburban areas and to advantage other regions.
- The three-judge district court found the plans reflected a deliberate and systematic policy of favoring rural and inner-city areas over suburban areas around Atlanta by overpopulating many suburban districts and underpopulating many rural and inner-city districts.
- The court also found intentional partisan and incumbent-protection aims, including systematically underpopulating districts held by Democratic incumbents, overpopulating districts held by Republicans, and pairing Republican incumbents against one another.
- Evidence included disproportionate incumbent pairings in the House plan (far more Republicans than Democrats paired) and similar pairing patterns in the Senate plan, along with district shapes supporting an intent to disadvantage targeted Republican incumbents.
- The court proceeded to trial only on the Equal Protection one-person-one-vote claim, holding other claims in abeyance.

## Issues

1. Whether state legislative redistricting plans with total population deviations under 10% can violate the Equal Protection Clause’s one-person-one-vote requirement.
2. Whether intentional regional favoritism and partisan/incumbent-protection objectives constitute illegitimate reasons for systematically creating population deviations among districts.

## Decision

- The three-judge district court held Georgia’s state House and Senate plans unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
- The court ruled that deviations under 10% were not insulated from review where plaintiffs proved the deviations resulted from deliberate and systematic discrimination rather than legitimate redistricting policies.
- The court concluded the deviations were intentionally used to (1) favor rural and inner-city regions over suburbs and (2) protect Democratic incumbents and disadvantage Republican incumbents.
- The court ordered remedial proceedings and appointed a special master to develop replacement plans.
- The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- The one-person-one-vote doctrine generally requires substantially equal population among state legislative districts under the Equal Protection Clause.
- A maximum deviation below 10% may create a presumption of constitutionality, but it is rebuttable.
- A redistricting plan with sub-10% deviations violates equal protection when challengers show the deviations are not attributable to legitimate state policies and instead reflect intentional and systematic regional or partisan favoritism.
- Evidence of purpose and pattern—including consistent overpopulation/underpopulation aligned with political or regional objectives—can establish an equal-protection violation even without exceeding the 10% deviation benchmark.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Georgia’s House and Senate redistricting plans because, despite staying below a 10% total population deviation, the plans used population inequality as a deliberate tool for regional vote dilution and partisan incumbent protection, violating the Equal Protection Clause’s one-person-one-vote requirement.


Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2004)