Opinion ID: 2656849
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutional Apportionment Standard

Text: The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause obliges the states to count equally the votes of its citizens. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 560-64 (1964). Accordingly, state legislative districts must be as equal in population as is practicable, thereby ensuring substantially equal representation for all citizens and substantially 8 equally weighted votes in legislative elections. As a corollary to this mandate, “an individual’s right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living [in] other parts of the State.” Id. at 568. Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized that strict adherence to a one person, one vote rule in the context of state districting is neither possible nor, in all instances, desirable. Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842 (1983); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 743-49 (1973). And the Constitution does not inflexibly require states to redraw constantly their legislative districts in order to maintain even populations in the face of ever-changing demographics. Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 583-84. Instead, states may enact “a reasonably conceived plan for periodic readjustment of legislative representation.” Id. at 583. The Supreme Court in Reynolds made clear that compliance with a decennial reapportionment scheme is sufficient to pass constitutional muster but less frequent apportionment “would assuredly be constitutionally suspect.” Id. at 583-84.