Document: 394 U.S. 526 89 S.Ct. 1225 22 L.Ed.2d 519 James C. KIRKPATRICK, Secretary of State Missouri, et al., Appellants,v.Paul W. PREISLER al. F. V. HEINKEL Appellants, v. Paul Nos. 30, 31. Argued Jan. 13, 1969. Decided April 7, Rehearing Denied May 19, See 395 917, 1737. Thomas J. Downey, Jefferson City, Mo., and David Collins, Macon, or appellants. Irving Achtenberg, Kansas for appellees. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 In Wesberry Sanders, 376 1, 84 S.Ct., 526, 11 481 (1964), we held that '(w)hile it may not be possible (for States) to draw congressional districts with mathematical precision,' id., at 18, 535, Art. I, § 2, Constitution requires 'as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a election worth much another's.' Id., 7—8, 530. We are required these cases elucidate practicable' standard. 2 The Missouri redistricting statute challenged resulted from State's second attempt since was decided. 1965, three-judge District Court Western declared districting Act then effect unconstitutional under but withheld any judicial relief 'until Legislature has once more had an opportunity deal problem * *.' Preisler 238 F.Supp. 187, 191. Thereafter General Assembly enacted statute, this too unconstitutional. Court, however, retained jurisdiction review further plan might enacted. 257 953 (1966), aff'd, sub nom. Kirkpatrick Preisler, 385 450, 87 613, 17 511 (1967). 1967, attack here, Mo.Rev.Stat., c. 128 (Cum.Supp.1967), Attorney moved declaration sustaining order dismissing case. 3 Based on best population data available legislature 1960 United States census figures, absolute equality among Missouri's 10 would mean 431,981 each district. created by 1967 Act, varied ideal within range 12,260 below 13,542 above it. difference between least most populous thus 25,802. percentage terms, district 3.13% ideal, 2.84% below.1 4 found fact relied figures instead based its less accurate data. addition, rejected submitted which provided smaller variances them. Finally, simple device switching some counties another have produced markedly reduced districts. findings, judge dissenting, did meet constitutional standard equal representation numbers people practicable,' failed make acceptable justification variances. 279 952 noted probable st yed Court's judgment pending appeal expressly authorized 'to conduct 1968 elections pursuant (the) 390 939, 88 1053, 19 1129 (1968). affirm. 5 primary argument so small they should considered de minimis reason satisfy limitation require independent justification. Alternatively, argues established evidence: contended out legitimate regard such factors distinct interest groups, integrity county lines, compactness districts, trends State, high proportion military personnel, college students, other nonvoters political realities 'legislative interplay.' I. 6 reject there fixed numerical variance enough without question whole thrust approach inconsistent adoption standards excuse circumstances particular extent practicably achieved differ Since 'equal (is) fundamental goal House Representatives,' supra, good-faith effort achieve precise equality. Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 577, 1362, 1389, 12 506 (1964). Unless shown despite effort, must justify variance, no matter how small. 7 There reasons rejecting approach. can see nonarbitrary way pick cutoff point suddenly become minimis. Moreover, consider certain encourage legislators strive rather than practicable. found, example, leading legislator deemed proper 2% level seek 8 Equal principle designed prevent debasement voting power diminution access elected representatives. Toleration even deviations detracts purposes. Therefore, command I create provide permits only limited unavoidable equality, shown. 9 Clearly, were unavoidable. Indeed, seriously missouri came close come. that, contrary, two reapportionment efforts 'the leadership both parties Senate given nothing better work makeshift bill what been candidly recognized expedient compromise.' F.Supp., 966. Legislative proponents frankly conceded hearing resort transferring entire subdivisions known contiguous istricts closer moreover, inaccurate constructing consideration simply inconceivable disparities magnitude unavoidable.2 New York apportionment regions divided into almost described Wells Rockefeller, post, 542, 1234, 1236 1237, provides striking evidence state tries complete all sum, 'it seems quite obvious could come providing did.' Swann Adams, 440, 445, 569, 573, 501 therefore turn whether record establishes legally It burden present variations populations various 443-444, 572. II. agree satisfactorily justified contends necessary avoid fragmenting areas economic social interests thereby diluting effective those Congress. But accept variances, large small, specific orientations antithetical basic premise people. '(N)either history alone, nor sorts group interests, permissible attempting population-based representation. Citizens, cast votes.' 579—580, 1391. also Davis Mann, 678, 692, 1441, 1448, 609 13 '(t)he reasonableness differences viewed context legislative interplay. leaders testified act their reasonable compromise. remembered practical problems inherent enactment legislation.'3 rule 'practicability' 'practicality." 989. Problems partisan politics cannot does otherwise pass muster. 14 Similarly, do find if necessarily result drawing lines along existing county, municipal, subdivision boundaries. manner, suggested, minimize opportunities gerrymandering. inhibit engaging gerrymandering4 variant argument, already rejected, considerations disparities. 15 legislature's taking account eligible voters total differed significantly district—some contained disproportionately personnel stationed bases maintained Armed Forces students attendance universities colleges. distribution seats except according ever 2. assuming deciding voter population, still unacceptable. made ascertain number apportion accordingly. At haphazard adjustments scheme population: overpopulation Eighth explained away presence base university; disproportionate newly arrived short-term residents City St. Louis. Even District, indication excess allocated corresponds alleged extraordinary additional noneligible there. 16 take projected shifts. recognize will usually years five elections. Situations arise where substantial shifts over period anticipated. Where predicted degree accuracy, properly By open avenue subterfuge. Findings thoroughly documented applied throughout systematic, ad hoc, manner. attempted Fourth Sixth Districts falls far short 'no adopted policy projection devising 6, district, enacting Act.' 983. claims consequence ensure geographically compact. However, 580, 1391, said, 'Modern developments improvements transportation communications hollow, mid-1960's, validly solely geographical considerations. Arguments allowing insure sparsely settled becoming availability citizens representatives impaired today, part, unconvincing.' event, claim upon unaesthetic appearance map boundaries changes which, lower court, greater A preference pleasingly shaped hardly 18 Affirmed. FORTAS, concurring. 20 concur cases, subscribe near-perfection announces obligatory legislatures facing difficult 21 drawn representative behalf same now interprets 'make equality,' remaining small,' justified. proceeds reject, seriatim, every type been—possibly, advanced. 23 'a achieve' allocates residents1 roughly orderly objective method.2 my view, arrive current latest returns making modifications allow movements last (which acceptable). also, opinion, discount significant transient nonresident (an adjustment indicates doubt). If proceed appropriate basis producing approximately trial courts, judgment, declining disapprove merely because disparities, absence gerrymandering—the deliberate arbitrary distortion personal 24 considering 'approximated' division allocation sympathize majority's view allowable tends demean theory practice suggests aim On hand, statement limits lead us toss aside wise recognition inscrutability imperfection man implicit standard: practicable.' This phrase refer arithmetical possibilities. Arithmetically, precisely size, measured decennial base. To carry theoretical possibility, ignore common sense, running line down middle corridor apartment house dividing single-family majority suggest extreme application teaching, mention example dramatize fallacy inflexible insistence exactness, tolerance reality. 25 Whatever merits attained, pursuit precision search will-o-'-the-wisp. solution approximation always obsolete. No purpose served unattainable imprecisions based. adhered precisely, majority, census. here 1967. Assuming perfect when taken,3 movement well in-and-out migration, arisen real reflected zealously protected Court.4 26 Nothing said taken indicating believe correspondence demonstrated residence divisions. Nor fix, relatively early stage figure variation.5 27 affirmed. failure comply plain patient directions use either systematically obtained districts—these strongly support refusal plan. true average, 1.6% variation quaintly calls 'ideal' (meaning figures) three more, finding regardless possibility situations tolerable Wesberry's standard, sustain rejection light plan's preparation. effected 4,319,813 census, follows: % Variation No. Population. From Ideal. One 439,746 +1.80 Two 436,448 +1.03 Three 436,099 +0.95 Four 419,721 -2.84 Five 431,178 -0.19 Six 422,238 -2.26 Seven 436,769 +1.11 Eight 445,523 +3.13 Nine 428,223 -0.87 Ten 423,868 -1.88 Ideal per district....... Average ideal........... Ratio largest smallest 1.06 Number 1.88% ideal. Population 25,802 Contrary appellants' assertion, sustained constitutionality Connor Johnson, 386 483, 1174, 224 (1967), issue presented involved racial Alton Tawes, 384 315, 86 1590, 586 Kirk Gong, 389 574, 695, 784 (1968), courts themselves reapportioned emergency basis, our affirmances agreement plans circumstance, DB (7) 443—444, Brief Appellants 37—38. dubious event temptation gerrymander inhibited, free choose several subdivisions, own complexion, include Besides, gerrymandering greatest freedom construct unequally populated '(T)he artistry cartographer put highest test he constituencies population. times, his skills compared surgeon, arduous rules. mapmaker allocate varying different butcher's cleaver replaces scalpel; results reflect sharply method operation.' A. Hacker, Congressional Districting 59 (1964 rev. ed.). constitutionally entirely residents, time established. permit account, distortions resulting nonresidents installations colleges area. Avery Midland County, u.S. 474 495, 1114, 1125, 45 argued dissenting disparate local respect defining types government units exercising governmental powers. there, departing man, legislatures—or, add, districts—because general nature function performed. enumeration error census—that observed successive enumerations area—is very low. Second surveys selected areas, conducted specially trained enumerators, counts about 1% regular enumerators. For groups larger. Bureau Census, Evaluation Research Program Censuses Housing, 1960, 'Accuracy Data Characteristics Measured Re-interviews,' Ser. ER 60, Table 24, p. 22. Far errors—virtually undercountings—which limitations enumerating system. Census estimate counted 96.9% 3.1% being Undercounting evenly distributed Instead, members notably young adult Negroes, likely missed nonwhites age estimated understate actual 9.5% Negro males undercounting reached 20% five-year groups. generally, Siegel, Completeness Coverage Nonwhite Current Estimates, Some Implications, Report, Conference Social Statistics (Washington, D.C., June 22—23, 1967) (Heer ed., 1968). Because heavily undercounted country, differential rates produce divergences relative indicated 114 counties, 50 lost 1966, while 64 gained. city Louis 57,900, 7.7%; County gained 146,000 20.8%. Outside change ranged 22,100 increase Charles 7,100 decrease Dunklin County. 41.7% 21.4% Holt Estimates Counties: July 1966 (Report 3), Reports, P—25, 407 (Bureau October 10, 1968) 11—13. Cf. 578, 1390, (1964): 'For present, deem spell tests. What marginally unsatisfactory another, depending Developing body doctrine case-by-case appears satisfactory means arriving detailed requirements area apportionment.'

Category: 1