Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
22 L. Ed. 2d 519, 394 U.S. 526, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1970 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Article I, § 2 of the Constitution requires that states make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality when drawing congressional districts. Any population variance between districts, no matter how small, is unconstitutional unless the state can prove the variance was unavoidable despite such effort or was justified by a legitimate state policy.
Facts:
- Following the 1960 census, the ideal population for each of Missouri's 10 congressional districts was 431,981.
- In 1967, the Missouri General Assembly enacted a new congressional redistricting statute.
- The districts created under the 1967 statute varied from the ideal population, with the most populous district being 3.13% above the ideal and the least populous being 2.84% below.
- The population difference between the most and least populous districts was 25,802 people.
- The Missouri General Assembly used population data that was less accurate than the available 1960 census figures.
- During the legislative process, the General Assembly rejected an alternative redistricting plan that featured significantly smaller population variances among districts.
- Missouri justified the variances by citing the need to represent distinct interest groups, preserve the integrity of county lines, account for population trends, and accommodate political compromises.
Procedural Posture:
- A three-judge federal District Court for the Western District of Missouri declared Missouri's 1965 congressional districting act unconstitutional.
- The Missouri General Assembly enacted a second redistricting statute, which the same District Court also declared unconstitutional.
- The General Assembly then enacted the 1967 statute at issue in this case.
- The Attorney General of Missouri moved in the District Court for a declaration that the 1967 Act was constitutional.
- The District Court, with one judge dissenting, held the 1967 Act unconstitutional for failing to meet the 'as nearly as practicable' standard.
- Kirkpatrick, the Secretary of State of Missouri, appealed directly 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's congressional redistricting plan, which creates districts with population variances up to 3.13% from the mathematical ideal, violate the 'as nearly as practicable' standard of Article I, § 2 of the Constitution when the state fails to prove that the variances were unavoidable?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. The state's redistricting plan violates Article I, § 2 because the 'as nearly as practicable' standard requires a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality, and the state failed to justify the population variances. The Court rejects any fixed numerical or percentage threshold for population variances to be considered de minimis. Instead, the state must justify every variance, no matter how small, by demonstrating it was unavoidable. Missouri's justifications—including representing distinct interest groups, accommodating political compromise, maintaining political subdivision boundaries, projecting population shifts without sufficient data, and ensuring compactness—are not legally acceptable reasons for deviating from the constitutional command of population equality. The fact that the legislature rejected a plan with smaller variances and could have achieved greater equality through simple adjustments proves the existing disparities were not unavoidable.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Fortas
Yes. While I agree that the judgment should be affirmed, I cannot subscribe to the majority's standard of near-perfection. The majority's pursuit of precise mathematical equality is a 'search for a will-o'-the-wisp' because it relies on census data that is inherently obsolete and imprecise by the time a plan is enacted. Instead of demanding absolute precision, courts should tolerate small disparities if the state has made a good-faith effort using an orderly method and there is no evidence of gerrymandering. However, in this specific case, Missouri's plan is unconstitutional due to the legislative history, including the failure to comply with prior court directions and the use of inaccurate data, which demonstrates a lack of a good-faith effort.
Analysis:
This decision established a strict, rigorous interpretation of the 'one person, one vote' principle for congressional districting, effectively eliminating a 'de minimis' exception for small population deviations. By requiring states to justify any variance, the Court placed an immense burden on legislatures, forcing them to prioritize mathematical equality above all other traditional districting criteria, such as respecting county lines or communities of interest. This precedent pushed states towards using computer technology for precise redistricting and significantly narrowed the range of acceptable justifications for population disparities in future apportionment challenges.
