Case Summary

When the Connecticut Reapportionment Board redrew the state’s legislative districts in 1971, it adopted the explicit policy goal of achieving “political fairness” between Connecticut’s political parties and adopted maps which split 47/169 towns and contained maximum population deviations of 1.81% for Senate districts and 7.83% for House districts. In November 1971, a group of Connecticut voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Board’s adopted legislative plans as violating the 14th Amendment’s one person, one vote requirement, arguing the Board erroneously applied the requirement and excessively split towns to produce smaller population deviations than were necessary in order to reach roughly proportional representation. Plaintiffs also argued that even if the plans’ deviations were otherwise within constitutionally permissible ranges, the Board’s underlying policy goal of political fairness and use of political data to achieve that couldn’t justify them.

  • On June 18, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legislative maps as constitutional, finding the plaintiffs failed to state a prima facie claim of 14th Amendment discrimination for one person, one vote purposes and, therefore, justification for the plans’ population deviations was not required. The Court explained population equality is clearly the primary goal when redistricting but there are nevertheless other legitimate factors and interests a State can consider when drawing lines, and the mere fact minor deviations result from these legitimate considerations doesn’t automatically violate the 14th Amendment. It also held the Board’s political fairness goal and use of partisan data was not per se impermissible because redistricting inevitably has and is intended to have “substantial political consequences” and separating politics from this process would be an “impossible” task for the court. While noting the consideration of politics when redistricting isn’t immune from 14th Amendment judicial scrutiny, the Court said it is least warranted here where the State aimed to fairly allocate political power amongst parties relative to voting strength and remained within acceptable population ranges when doing so.

Significance: (1) Population-based challenges to state legislative districts are judged under the less stringent, "substantially" equal population standard derived from the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; (2) Minor deviations from equal population among state legislative districts (appx. <10%) does not constitute a prima facie claim of discrimination under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and therefore the State is not required to justify such minor deviations; (3) Political considerations are implicit in and inseparable from the redistricting process, and while not totally immune from judicial scrutiny, a state's use of partisan data to further their goal of political fairness is constitutionally permissible.

Case Library

U.S. Supreme Court - 412 U.S. 735 (1973)