CASE SUMMARY

In early 1982, after Kansas’s Governor vetoed the Kansas Legislature’s new congressional redistricting plans, two different sets of plaintiffs, “Carson” and “O’Sullivan,” filed federal lawsuits challenging the state’s then-existing congressional plan as unconstitutionally malapportioned in violation of the one person, one vote principle under Article I, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Both plaintiffs claimed the state would fail to enact a plan in time for the 1982 elections and requested the court intervene and order one of their properly apportioned plan proposals into use. The Carson plaintiffs’ plan had a max population deviation of 0.09%, largely tracked the plan passed by the legislature, and followed a least-changes approach, while the O’Sullivan plaintiffs’ plan had a max deviation of 0.11% and prioritized avoiding unnecessary splits of political subdivisions.

  • On June 3, 1982, the federal district court adopted a plan substantially similar to the O’Sullivan plan, declining to give any deference to the legislators’ efforts in passing the vetoed plans on the grounds that courts have “broad” powers to adopt a valid redistricting plan in circumstances where the existing plan is unconstitutional and the state has failed to enact a new one in time for the next election. The court justified the 0.338% max population deviation in its plan as resulting from the goal of minimizing political subdivision splits.

CASE LIBRARY

U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas - Nos. 82-1335 & 82-4096 [540 F. Supp. 1200]