Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission
The Supreme Court reversed a lower court that had struck down West Virginia's 2011 congressional redistricting map, ruling that a tiny population difference between districts was justified by the State's legitimate, longstanding districting goals.
The decision reinforces that states get real leeway to balance population equality against other reasonable goals like keeping counties whole and protecting incumbents, so long as they can show why a perfectly equal map wasn't adopted.
How it got here: A three-judge federal district court struck down the map as unconstitutional; the state officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
After the 2010 census left West Virginia with the same three congressional seats but shifted population within the state, the legislature redrew district lines. It picked a plan (S.B. 1008) that moved only one county between districts but had a small 0.79% population variance between the largest and smallest districts. Jefferson County and two of its commissioners sued, arguing the map violated the constitutional requirement that votes count equally.
The question before the Court
Could West Virginia keep its new congressional map even though it created a small population difference between districts?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled West Virginia could keep its map. Under the test from a 1983 case called Karcher, once a state concedes it could have drawn a more mathematically equal map, it must show the deviations it kept were necessary to serve legitimate, consistently applied goals. The Court found West Virginia met that burden: the map avoided splitting counties, kept incumbents in separate districts, and shifted far fewer people between districts than any alternative plan.
The Court rejected the lower court's view that modern mapping technology made the same small variance (0.79%) less excusable than it would have been decades ago, and rejected the idea that the State needed to document precisely how much of the variance was caused by each of its stated goals. No competing plan served all three of the State's legitimate goals while achieving a lower variance, so the map was constitutionally justified.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
West Virginia's three-seat congressional map stays in effect as drawn, avoiding a scramble to redraw districts before the next election. More broadly, state legislatures nationwide get reassurance that modern mapping technology does not force them into near-perfect population equality if they have legitimate, consistently applied reasons for small deviations.
What changes now
The case goes back to the district court, which must now consider the plaintiffs' separate claims under the West Virginia Constitution that the Supreme Court did not address. West Virginia's 2011 congressional map remains in effect as adopted. This is a final ruling on the federal constitutional claim, though related state-law claims are still unresolved.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether West Virginia's map violates the West Virginia Constitution, since the lower court never reached that question and it wasn't briefed. That claim goes back to the district court to resolve separately.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the two-part test from Karcher v. Daggett for evaluating whether a congressional map's population differences violate the one-person-one-vote principle: challengers must first show the differences could have been avoided, then the state must show the differences were necessary to serve a legitimate objective.
- Because West Virginia had already conceded at trial that a more equal map was possible, the only remaining question was whether the State could justify its chosen map's small population variance by pointing to legitimate, consistently applied policies.
- The Court held that keeping counties whole and avoiding contests between incumbents are well-established valid, neutral state districting goals, and that minimizing how many people get shifted into new districts is likewise a valid goal, even though it is not listed by name in Karcher.
- The Court rejected the lower court's reasoning that better mapping technology turned a variance that was 'minor' in 1983 into a 'major' one now, explaining that technology cannot shrink the population differences that already exist between a state's counties.
- The Court also rejected the requirement that the legislature document exactly how much of the variance was caused by each specific goal, finding no precedent demanding that level of numerical precision.
- Weighing the small size of the deviation against the importance and consistency of the State's stated goals, and finding no alternative plan that served all those goals while achieving a lower variance, the Court concluded the State had carried its burden under Karcher.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Karcher v. Daggett (462 U. S. 725)
The Court relied on and applied Karcher's two-step test for justifying population differences between districts.