Brown v. Thomson

Background

The lawsuit was brought by members of the state League of Women Voters and voters from seven counties who said their votes were diluted because Wyoming gave one representative to Niobrara County, the State's smallest county. Wyoming's 1981 law set a 64-member House so that each of the State's 23 counties would have at least one representative. The 1980 census made the ideal district 7,337 people; Niobrara had 2,924.

Reasoning

The key question was whether giving Niobrara its own seat violated the rule that legislative districts should be nearly equal in population. The Court acknowledged large disparities can raise a constitutional problem and that deviations under about 10% are usually acceptable. It found Niobrara's underpopulation (about 60% below the mean) was not a decisive injury because Wyoming's county-preserving policy is written into the State Constitution, has been applied consistently, and the single extra seat made only a de minimis change in the plaintiffs' voting power. The Court therefore affirmed the lower court.

Real world impact

The ruling lets Niobrara County keep its own representative under the 64-seat plan, preserving a direct voice for that small county. It gives states some flexibility to preserve political subdivisions when reapportioning. Because the Court limited its review to this single seat, it did not decide whether the entire Wyoming plan is ultimately constitutionally acceptable.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O'Connor (joined by Justice Stevens) concurred but warned that very large deviations may be unacceptable. Justice Brennan, joined by three others, dissented, arguing the plan's large overall deviations violated equal representation and that the Court should have considered the entire apportionment.