Karcher v. Daggett

Supreme Court of United States
462 U.S. 725 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In congressional reapportionment, Article I, § 2 of the Constitution permits only the limited population variances that are unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality. There is no de minimis threshold below which population differences are automatically constitutional; any avoidable variance must be justified as necessary to achieve a legitimate state objective.

Facts:

Following the 1980 census, New Jersey's entitlement to seats in the U.S. House of Representatives was reduced from 15 to 14.
In response, the New Jersey Legislature was required to draw a new congressional district map.
The Legislature passed a reapportionment bill known as the 'Feldman Plan,' which was signed into law.
The Feldman Plan established 14 districts with a mean population of 526,059.
The most populous district had 527,472 people, and the least populous district had 523,798 people.
The difference between the largest and smallest districts was 3,674 people, representing a maximum population deviation of 0.6984% from the mean.
During the legislative process, an alternative plan, the 'Reock Plan,' was presented which had a smaller maximum deviation of 0.4514%.

Procedural Posture:

A group of individuals including incumbent Republican Congressmen (Daggett et al.) filed suit against New Jersey officials (Karcher et al.) in federal court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the state's 1982 congressional reapportionment plan (the 'Feldman Plan') was unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel was convened in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to hear the case.
The District Court declared the Feldman Plan unconstitutional because its population variances were not unavoidable.
The court enjoined the state from conducting elections under the plan, but the injunction was stayed by Justice Brennan pending appeal.
The state officials appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.

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 congressional reapportionment plan with a maximum population deviation of less than one percent between the largest and smallest districts automatically satisfy the 'as nearly as practicable' standard of Article I, § 2, without further justification?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brennan

No. A congressional reapportionment plan with a maximum population deviation of less than one percent does not automatically satisfy the constitutional standard of being 'as nearly as practicable.' The Court reaffirms the strict standard from Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, holding that there are no de minimis population variations that are acceptable without justification if they could have been practicably avoided. The analysis is a two-part test: (1) the plaintiff must first show that the population differences could have been reduced or eliminated by a good-faith effort; (2) if the plaintiff succeeds, the burden shifts to the state to prove that each variance was necessary to achieve a legitimate state objective. Here, the existence of the Reock Plan, which had a smaller deviation, proved that the variances in the Feldman Plan were avoidable. The State then failed to carry its burden of justifying the deviations, as its asserted goal of preserving minority voting strength was not causally linked to the specific population variances in the challenged districts. The Court also rejected the argument that deviations smaller than the statistical imprecision of the census are the 'functional equivalent of zero,' finding it arbitrary and unsupported by evidence of the undercount's distribution.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

Justice Stevens joined the majority but wrote separately to argue that political gerrymandering is a distinct constitutional harm under the Equal Protection Clause that courts should address. He contended that relying solely on population equality is an inadequate check on partisan gerrymandering, as technology allows for the creation of equipopulous but politically unfair districts. He suggested that courts could identify unconstitutional gerrymanders by looking for objective indicia of irregularity, such as bizarrely shaped districts and disregard for political subdivision boundaries. He viewed the 'uncouth' shapes of the New Jersey districts as strong evidence of a partisan gerrymander that called for justification, strengthening the case for striking down the plan.

Dissenting - Justice White

Yes. A plan with a deviation as small as 0.6984% should be considered constitutionally permissible per se. The majority's 'unreasonable insistence on an unattainable perfection' is not required by precedent and is unwise. Such a small deviation is statistically insignificant, falling well within the margin of error of the census itself, and is dwarfed by population shifts and differences in voter eligibility between districts. The Court's rigid rule invites endless litigation over trivial differences and provides a cover for partisan gerrymandering, as legislators can create politically biased districts while claiming adherence to the strict population standard. The Court should adopt a de minimis threshold (e.g., 5%) below which plans are presumptively valid, allowing legislatures to pursue other legitimate goals like compactness and respecting political boundaries.

Dissenting - Justice Powell

Justice Powell joined Justice White's dissent, adding that the Court's uncompromising focus on numerical equality encourages and legitimates partisan gerrymandering. He argued that gerrymandering that substantially disenfranchises identifiable groups violates the Equal Protection Clause. The 'extraordinary map' of New Jersey, with its 'contorted' districts bearing no relationship to legitimate state purposes like respecting community boundaries, is evidence of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. While the issue was not fully litigated below, he believed that such blatant partisan line-drawing can rise to a constitutional violation that courts are equipped to remedy.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms and reinforces the extremely stringent 'one person, one vote' standard for congressional districting established in Wesberry v. Sanders and Kirkpatrick v. Preisler. It emphatically rejects any de minimis exception, meaning no population deviation is too small to be challenged if a more equal plan was possible. The case solidifies a two-step burden-shifting framework for litigation, placing a high evidentiary burden on states to justify even minute deviations. While the majority focused narrowly on population equality, the separate opinions from Justices Stevens, White, and Powell highlighted the Court's growing concern that the strict equality standard fails to address, and may even facilitate, partisan gerrymandering, foreshadowing decades of future litigation over that issue.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Karcher v. Daggett (1983)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"