Gaffney v. Cummings
1973 U.S. LEXIS 52, 412 U.S. 735, 37 L. Ed. 2d 298 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts (i.e., a total maximum deviation below 10%) do not establish a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, a reapportionment plan is not unconstitutional simply because it was consciously designed to achieve a rough approximation of proportional political representation for the major parties.
Facts:
- Following the 1970 census, the Connecticut legislature and a subsequent bipartisan commission failed to agree on a reapportionment plan for the state's General Assembly.
- As a final step in the state's constitutional process, a three-member bipartisan Apportionment Board was created to devise the plan.
- The Board's plan for the State House of Representatives resulted in a maximum total population deviation of 7.83% between the most and least populous districts, with an average deviation of 1.9%.
- The Board's plan for the State Senate had a maximum total population deviation of 1.81%, with an average deviation of 0.45%.
- The Board openly acknowledged that it had followed a policy of 'political fairness' by intentionally drawing district lines to create a rough approximation of the statewide political strength of the Democratic and Republican parties.
- In order to achieve its population and political fairness goals, the Board's plan cut the boundary lines of 47 of Connecticut's 169 towns.
Procedural Posture:
- An action was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut seeking to enjoin the implementation of the Board's reapportionment plan.
- Gaffney, the Chairman of the State Republican Party, intervened to defend the plan.
- A three-judge District Court was empaneled, which held a hearing and received evidence.
- The District Court invalidated the Board's plan, finding the population deviations were not justified by a sufficient state interest and that the policy of partisan structuring was not a legitimate reason for the deviations.
- The District Court permanently enjoined the plan's use and announced it would appoint a master to devise a new one.
- Gaffney, as appellant, appealed the decision directly to the United States Supreme Court, which granted a stay of the District Court's judgment pending its review.
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 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it has minor population deviations among districts (a maximum of 7.83%) and was intentionally drawn to achieve proportional representation for the major political parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No, the reapportionment plan does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination and do not require justification by the state. Unlike congressional districting, which requires a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality, state legislative districting allows for 'somewhat more flexibility.' The Court reasoned that census data is inherently imperfect and population is constantly shifting, making a chase for mathematical precision an unrealistic constitutional requirement. As long as population deviations are minor (under 10%), they are not considered a substantial dilution of an individual's vote. Furthermore, the conscious consideration of political fairness is not unconstitutional. Politics are inseparable from the districting process, and attempting to fairly allocate political power according to voting strength is a permissible, and not inherently invidious, goal. As long as a plan does not fence out a racial or political group or invidiously minimize their voting strength, using political data to achieve a fair partisan balance is within a state's discretion.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant 'safe harbor' for state legislative reapportionment plans, differentiating them from the stricter standards applied to congressional redistricting. By declaring that total population deviations below 10% are presumptively constitutional, the Court created a de minimis threshold that reduces the likelihood of successful federal court challenges based solely on population variance. The ruling also legitimized the overt use of political data and partisan goals in redistricting, so long as the intent is to create 'fairness' rather than to invidiously discriminate against a particular group. This has had a lasting impact, providing state legislatures with greater flexibility and sanctioning the reality that political considerations are a central part of the apportionment process.
