Opinion ID: 551345
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Redistricting Between Decennial Redistrictings

Text: 30 The County contends that the district court erred in requiring it to redistrict now, at a point between regularly scheduled decennial reapportionments. Citing Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, reh'g denied, 379 U.S. 870, 85 S.Ct. 12, 13 L.Ed.2d 76 (1964), the County claims that decennial redistricting based upon census data is a rule, and that that case was intended to avoid the confusion that might be associated with more frequent reapportionments. 31 The County misreads Reynolds. The Court in Reynolds instituted a requirement of periodic reapportionment based upon current population data. It stated that decennial reapportionment would clearly meet the minimal requirements, and less frequent reapportionment would assuredly be constitutionally suspect. 377 U.S. at 583-84, 84 S.Ct. at 1393. The Court further noted, however, that while more frequent apportionment was not constitutionally required, it would be constitutionally permissible, and even practicably desirable. Id. Thus, Reynolds did not institute a constitutional maximum frequency for reapportionment; rather, it set a floor below which such frequency may not constitutionally fall.