Question

A state’s constitution authorizes a state reapportionment board to redraw state legislative districts every 12 years. During the most recent reapportionment process, consultants had provided the board with two alternative plans for reapportionment. One plan provided for districts with less than a 3% difference in proportional representation between districts. The other plan was drawn up to conform state legislative districts as nearly as possible to county borders, resulting in differences in proportional representation between districts of up to 12%. The current apportionment of legislative districts results in differences of up to 15% between districts. The board ultimately selected the reapportionment plan based on county borders, and this plan was approved by the state legislature.

A Caucasian resident and registered voter of the state brought a constitutional challenge to the reapportionment in federal court. His claim is based on the fact that, as a result of the plan that the board selected, the percentage of the African-American voting population in the district in which he lives increased from 45% to 55%. Had the other plan been selected, the percentage would have been unchanged in his district.In the absence of a federal statute applicable to the state, is the resident likely to prevail?

Answer 1

No, because preserving political subdivisions is a legitimate state interest that justifies the plan's variance in representation.

Step-by-step explanation:

In a similar example, The majority made mention of the State constitutional power of the Virginia General Assembly to pass local legislation associated with specific political subdivisions.

They considered that legislative role to be an essential and substantive feature of the powers and procedures of the Virginia legislature, and therefore justified an effort to preserve political subdivision boundaries in drawing the districts of the House of Delegates.

Its large percentage reached the conclusion that although the consequent overall range between house districts "may well approach tolerable limits, we do not believe it exceeds those limits."