Opinion ID: 1435299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Equality of Population Between Districts

Text: Perhaps the most fundamental requirement that the law imposes on legislative redistricting is population equality, as reflected in the one person, one vote standard. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963). Population equality requirements for state legislative districts are governed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [5] and by Article III, § 4 of the Maryland Constitution. [6] According to the Supreme Court, the federal constitution requires that population equality be the primary redistricting consideration. See Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 732-33, 103 S.Ct. 2653, 2659, 77 L.Ed.2d 133 (1983); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 790, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 2352, 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973); Gray, 372 U.S. at 379-80, 83 S.Ct. at 808, 9 L.Ed.2d 821. [7] Population equality has been described as the  sine qua non of fair representation. Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 672, 475 A.2d at 435. See Maryland Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L.Ed.2d 595 (1964). In analyzing state legislative plans, courts consider their deviation from the ideal population of the district, which is formulated by dividing the entire voting population by the number of persons to be elected. See Guinn, et al., supra, at 263. A plan with less than a ten percent top-to-bottom deviation is prima facie constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, which means that it is generally considered acceptable without any justification at all. J. Gerald Hebert, Redistricting in the Post 2000 Era, 8 GEO. MASON L.REV. 431, 472 (2000). See Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 113 S.Ct. 1149, 122 L.Ed.2d 500 (1993); Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 2695-96, 77 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983). [8] Since the State's 2002 Plan is within a ten percent deviation from ideal population equality, it is entitled to a prima facie presumption of constitutionality. [9]