Cox, Georgia Secretary of State v. Larios
542 U.S. 947, 124 S. Ct. 2806 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Population deviations in a state legislative redistricting plan, even if under the 10% threshold generally considered minor, violate the one-person, one-vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause if they are the result of arbitrary and discriminatory policies, such as partisan gerrymandering or regional favoritism, rather than the advancement of a legitimate state policy.
Facts:
- Following the 2000 census, the Georgia General Assembly, controlled by the Democratic party, created new reapportionment plans for the state House and Senate.
- The plans systematically favored rural and inner-city interests, which were historically Democratic-leaning, at the expense of suburban areas, which were more Republican-leaning.
- To achieve this, the plans underpopulated districts held by Democratic incumbents and overpopulated those held by Republican incumbents.
- The plans also deliberately paired numerous Republican incumbents against one another to force them out of office; in the House plan, 37 Republicans (50% of the caucus) were paired, compared to only 9 Democrats (less than 9% of their caucus).
- The drafters ignored traditional, neutral redistricting criteria such as keeping counties whole or creating compact, contiguous districts.
- The resulting districts were often oddly shaped and designed to protect Democratic incumbents while targeting specific Republican incumbents for defeat.
- The maximum population deviation across all districts in both plans was less than 10%.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of Georgia voters, including Barbara Larios (appellees), filed a lawsuit against Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox (appellant) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- The plaintiffs challenged Georgia's 2001 state legislative reapportionment plans, alleging they violated the one-person, one-vote principle of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court conducted a trial and found the plans unconstitutional because the population deviations resulted from systematic discrimination against Republicans and suburban voters.
- The District Court permanently enjoined the state from using the plans in future elections.
- The Georgia Secretary of State filed a direct appeal of the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state legislative reapportionment plan with population deviations under 10% violate the one-person, one-vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause if the deviations result from a systematic policy of partisan gerrymandering and regional favoritism, rather than a legitimate state policy?
Opinions:
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. A state legislative reapportionment plan with population deviations under 10% violates the one-person, one-vote principle where the deviations are not justified by a rational state policy but are instead the result of systematic partisan gerrymandering and regional favoritism. The District Court correctly found that the population deviations were designed to give an electoral advantage to Democrats and certain regions of the state. These motivations are not legitimate state policies that can justify deviations from the core principle of population equality established in Reynolds v. Sims. The Court properly rejects the appellant's invitation to create a 10% 'safe harbor' for population deviations, within which any motivation would be permissible, as this would dilute the strength of the equal-population principle. While a separate partisan gerrymandering claim was not before the Court, the facts clearly demonstrate that an 'impermissible partisan gerrymander is visible to the judicial eye.'
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. A districting plan that adheres to the 10% deviation threshold should not be invalidated based on circumstantial evidence of partisan political motivation. Precedent has established that minor deviations of less than 10% are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, creating a de facto 'safe harbor' for states. Partisan motivation—'politics as usual'—is a traditional and constitutional redistricting criterion, as long as it does not go too far. Staying within the 10% population disparity is not 'going too far.' Allowing courts to scrutinize the political motives behind minor deviations will destroy the 10% safe harbor and encourage politically motivated litigation. The Court should not have summarily affirmed this case but instead should have set it for full argument to address this substantial constitutional question.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying that the 10% maximum deviation benchmark for state legislative districts is not an absolute 'safe harbor' that immunizes a plan from constitutional challenge. The Court affirmed that even small deviations must be justified by a legitimate, rational, and neutral state policy. By holding that systematic partisan advantage and regional favoritism do not constitute such policies, the decision reinforces the substantive core of the one-person, one-vote principle. It prevents states from using seemingly minor population shifts as a tool for unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, thereby requiring a justification for deviations beyond mere compliance with the 10% threshold.
