Gaffney v. Cummings (412 U.S. 735)

Supreme Court of the United States

412 U.S. 735

Gaffney  v.  Cummings et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

No. 71-1476.  Argued: February 26-27, 1973 --- Decided: June 18, 1973

Connecticut's legislative apportionment plan was held by the District Court to be unconstitutional because partisan political structuring had resulted in excessive population deviations in the House districting.

Held:

1. Minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts do not make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in this case, where the House districts deviated on the average by 1.9% and the maximum deviation was 7.83%, a prima facie case was not made out. Pp. 740-751.
2. A "political fairness principle" that achieves a rough approximation of the statewide political strengths of the two major parties does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 751-754.


341 F.Supp. 139, reversed.


WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 772.


Robert G. Dixon, Jr., argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., Francis J. McCarthy, and Gordon W. Hatheway, Jr.

Robert A. Satter argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was James A. Wade.

This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.