Gaffney v. Cummings

Background

A three-member bipartisan state board adopted a reapportionment plan for Connecticut’s legislature after the legislature and a larger commission failed to agree. The plan used 1970 census data to create 36 Senate and 151 House single-member districts. The House plan averaged a 1.9% population deviation and had a maximum deviation between districts of 7.83%; the Senate deviations were much smaller. Plaintiffs sued in federal court, alleging excessive town splits, a built-in Republican bias, and that the plan was a political gerrymander. A three-judge District Court struck the plan down and appointed a Master to draw a new plan.

Reasoning

The central question was whether these relatively small population differences alone showed a constitutional denial of equal protection. The Court said they did not. Relying on the idea that state legislative districts must be “as nearly of equal population as is practicable,” the Court held that minor deviations—given census imprecision, changing populations, and practical limits—do not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory dilution. The Court also explained that considering party voting patterns to achieve rough proportionality is not inherently unconstitutional unless used to invidiously exclude a group’s voting strength.

Real world impact

The decision allows state reapportionment bodies more leeway to accept small population deviations and to consider political voting data when drawing districts, so long as there is no intentional exclusion or discriminatory result. Federal courts should not displace state decisionmaking over minor numeric differences. The ruling reversed the District Court and left open challenges where a plan intentionally fences out groups or unconstitutionally dilutes votes.

Dissents or concurrances

The opinion notes a dissent by Justice Brennan, indicating disagreement among the Justices about the Court’s tolerance for political considerations and the proper limits of population deviations.