Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission

Supreme Court of the United States
567 U. S. ____ (2012) (2012)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A minor population variance in a state's congressional redistricting plan is constitutionally permissible under Article I, §2 if the state demonstrates that the variance is necessary to achieve legitimate, consistently applied state policies, such as respecting political subdivision boundaries and preserving the core of prior districts.

Facts:

Following the 2010 census, West Virginia undertook the process of redrawing its three congressional districts to account for internal population shifts.
The West Virginia Legislature considered multiple redistricting proposals, including a 'Perfect Plan' that had a population difference of only one person between districts.
The 'Perfect Plan' was criticized because it split counties, placed two incumbent representatives in the same district, and would have shifted one-third of the state's population into new districts.
The legislature ultimately enacted plan S. B. 1008, which had a population variance of 0.79% between the most and least populous districts.
The enacted plan, S. B. 1008, did not split any counties, which was consistent with West Virginia's longstanding historical practice.
S. B. 1008 also avoided placing any incumbent representatives into the same district.
The plan was designed to minimize disruption by moving only one county, representing just 1.5% of the state's population, into a new district, the smallest shift of any plan considered.

Procedural Posture:

The Jefferson County Commission and two commissioners sued West Virginia's secretary of state in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the implementation of the state's new congressional redistricting plan, S. B. 1008.
A three-judge panel of the District Court held that the plan's population variance was unconstitutional and granted the injunction, declaring the plan 'null and void.'
The state defendants, as appellants, filed a direct appeal of the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 has a population variance of 0.79%, violate the 'one person, one vote' principle of Article I, §2 of the Constitution when that variance is justified by legitimate state policies such as respecting county boundaries, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbents?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No, the state's redistricting plan does not violate the 'one person, one vote' principle because the minor population variance is justified by legitimate state objectives. Under the Karcher test, once a plaintiff shows an avoidable population difference, the state bears the burden of showing the variance was necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. Here, West Virginia's asserted goals of not splitting counties, preserving the cores of prior districts by minimizing population shifts, and avoiding incumbent contests are all valid state policies recognized by this Court. The district court erred in dismissing these justifications and in requiring the state to create a record linking a 'numerically precise portion' of the variance to each specific policy. Given the small size of the deviation (0.79%) and the fact that no alternative plan could vindicate the state's multiple, consistently applied objectives as effectively, the plan represents a reasonable exercise of legislative judgment that is entitled to deference.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms that the 'one person, one vote' standard for congressional districting is not a command for absolute mathematical equality at all costs. It provides states with significant flexibility to pursue legitimate, neutral districting policies, even if those policies result in minor population deviations. The ruling signals a level of judicial deference to state legislatures in the politically complex task of redistricting, clarifying that courts should not demand mathematical precision in justifying variances tied to valid state goals. This precedent strengthens the position of states wishing to prioritize traditional districting criteria like preserving political subdivisions and maintaining continuity for voters over achieving the lowest possible population variance.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission (2012)

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