Larios v. Cox
300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State legislative reapportionment plans with population deviations under 10% are not immune from constitutional challenge and violate the Equal Protection Clause's 'one person, one vote' principle if the deviations are not justified by legitimate, consistently applied state policies but are instead the result of arbitrary and discriminatory purposes, such as systematic regional favoritism or partisan incumbent protection.
Facts:
- Following the 2000 Census, Georgia's population had grown significantly, with faster growth in the Republican-leaning suburban areas around Atlanta compared to the Democratic-leaning rural south Georgia and inner-city Atlanta.
- The Georgia General Assembly, controlled by the Democratic party, undertook reapportionment in 2001 to redraw state House, state Senate, and congressional districts.
- The Assembly adopted guidelines allowing a total population deviation of up to 10% for state legislative districts.
- Using this 10% window, the Democratic majority drew state House and Senate plans with total population deviations of 9.98%.
- The plans systematically underpopulated districts in rural south Georgia and inner-city Atlanta, which were predominantly Democratic, to preserve the political influence of those regions.
- Correspondingly, the plans overpopulated districts in the fast-growing, Republican-leaning suburban areas.
- The plans also protected Democratic incumbents by creating safe districts, while pairing a disproportionately high number of Republican incumbents against one another in newly configured districts.
- Traditional, neutral redistricting criteria, such as district compactness, contiguity, and preserving county or city boundaries, were largely ignored during the creation of the state legislative plans.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging Georgia's 2001-2002 congressional and state legislative reapportionment plans.
- Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), a special three-judge district court was convened to hear the case.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motions to dismiss, allowing the 'one person, one vote' and other claims to proceed.
- The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims of partisan gerrymandering and violations of the First Amendment, but denied summary judgment on the 'one person, one vote' claims.
- The three-judge district court conducted a bench trial solely on the plaintiffs' 'one person, one vote' challenges to the state legislative and congressional plans.
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 just under 10% violate the Equal Protection Clause's 'one person, one vote' principle if the deviations are not justified by legitimate state policies but are instead the result of systematic, intentional efforts to favor certain geographic regions and the incumbents of one political party?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A state legislative reapportionment plan with population deviations just under 10% violates the Equal Protection Clause's 'one person, one vote' principle when the deviations are not based on legitimate state policies but are instead the result of arbitrary and discriminatory objectives. The court reasoned that the 10% deviation threshold for state legislative plans is not a 'safe harbor' that immunizes a plan from constitutional attack, but rather a rebuttable presumption of validity. The plaintiffs successfully rebutted this presumption by demonstrating that the 9.98% deviations were systematically and intentionally created to achieve two impermissible goals: regional favoritism and discriminatory incumbent protection. First, the plans were deliberately drawn to overweight the votes of citizens in rural south Georgia and inner-city Atlanta to preserve their political power, which, under Reynolds v. Sims, is unconstitutional as it dilutes votes based on where a person lives. Second, the policy of incumbent protection was applied in a blatantly partisan and discriminatory manner, systematically protecting Democratic incumbents while targeting Republican incumbents by overpopulating their districts and pairing them against each other. Because these deviations were not justified by any legitimate, consistently applied state policy, such as compactness or respecting political subdivisions, the plans were unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the '10% rule' for state legislative reapportionment, establishing that this threshold is not a safe harbor but a burden-shifting standard. It empowers challengers to strike down plans with less than 10% deviation if they can prove the deviations stem from an arbitrary or discriminatory purpose, such as gerrymandering. The decision reinforces that justifications for population deviations must be legitimate and applied neutrally, strongly rejecting regional favoritism as a valid basis for malapportionment. This precedent makes it more difficult for state legislatures to use minor population deviations as a tool for partisan or regional advantage, thereby strengthening the core 'one person, one vote' principle.
