Cox, Georgia Secretary of State v. Larios

2004-06-30

Headline: Georgia’s legislative maps are struck down for unequal populations; Court affirms lower court, blocking maps that favored Democrats and requiring new, population‑balanced districts before future state elections.

Holding: The Court affirmed that Georgia’s state legislative maps violated the one‑person, one‑vote rule by using population deviations and district lines to favor certain regions and protect Democratic incumbents over Republicans.

Real World Impact:

Invalidates Georgia’s disputed legislative maps and requires new, population‑balanced maps.
Could change which party wins state legislative seats in upcoming elections.
Restricts using small population deviations to justify partisan mapmaking.

Topics: legislative redistricting, one person, one vote, partisan gerrymandering, state elections

Summary

Background

State officials in Georgia drew new maps for the State House and Senate. Voters and candidates challenged those maps in federal court, saying the lines were drawn to favor certain regions and protect Democratic incumbents. The District Court found deliberate actions: oddly shaped districts, pairing many Republican incumbents against one another, and population differences that advantaged Democrats.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the maps violated the basic rule that legislative districts should have substantially equal populations so each person’s vote counts about the same. The Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment that the maps did violate that one‑person, one‑vote rule. The opinion notes the record shows intentional underpopulation of some districts and overpopulation of others, selective incumbent protection, and district shapes and pairings that had no neutral justification. The Court rejected the idea that small population deviations under 10% create a safe harbor for partisan mapmaking.

Real world impact

The decision invalidates Georgia’s challenged legislative plans and requires new maps that respect population equality. That will affect which candidates and parties can win upcoming state legislative seats and could change control of some legislative bodies. The opinion also signals that blatant partisan mapmaking using population deviations can be reviewed and blocked by courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens (joined by Justice Breyer) wrote the opinion affirming the lower court and emphasized courts can spot partisan gerrymanders; Justice Scalia dissented, arguing for deference and caution about overturning plans that fall within small population deviations.