Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Rage in Brazil

Mass protests erupt in the biggest cities of Brazil.  Slideshow 

Photo

The Afghan Army

The many faces of the Afghan National Army, which has taken over security of the country from NATO.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Supreme Court upholds West Virginia redistricting

Related Topics

WASHINGTON | Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:16pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court upheld West Virginia's congressional restricting map as constitutional on Tuesday, overturning a lower court order that found the plan violated the principle of "one person, one vote."

In an unsigned opinion, the court said that a federal district court panel had erred in voiding the map in January and had failed to give appropriate deference to the Democratic-controlled legislature that had crafted it.

West Virginia had argued that it had legitimate interests in allowing small variations in populations served by each district such as making districts compact, not splitting counties between districts, and avoiding contests between incumbents.

The drawing of congressional districts often generates litigation because of its potential to reduce political power of various constituents, including political parties and individual municipalities or counties.

The Jefferson County Commission claimed that West Virginia's plan appeared to dilute the voting power in the state's faster-growing Eastern Panhandle by splitting that region up.

The state's plan also had a population variance between the largest and smallest districts of 0.79 percent of the population of the average district, in line with plans that the Supreme Court had upheld in the past.

But the Supreme Court said it was not essential that a state draw districts with "precise mathematical equality" so long as small variations serve legitimate objectives.

It said such deviations were justified in this case, in light of the state's interests and the absence of better alternatives that offered greater population equality.

The court noted that one alternative, branded by supporters as the "Perfect Plan," would have achieved virtual population equality - a population difference of one person between the largest and smallest districts - at a cost of splitting counties, pitting two incumbents against each other, and moving one-third of the state's population into a new district.

West Virginia has three congressional representatives.

"We're incredibly disappointed," Stephen Skinner, a lawyer for the Jefferson County Commission, said in a telephone interview. "The law until today has been crystal clear, and the Supreme Court has changed the standards. To place arbitrary county lines over mathematical certainty does not comport with truly representative government."

The Supreme Court had put the lower court order on hold while it reviewed the matter. It returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.

The case, brought in the name of West Virginia's secretary of state, is Tennant et al v. Jefferson County Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-1184.

(Reporting by Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Howard Goller and Doina Chiacu)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
ArghONaught wrote:
This reads as if the republicans are totally in favor of states and local rights until they get the slightly shorter end. Separately, Why does any state need cities and counties when the two are effectively the same jurisdictions. jobs for the boys? Simple politics?

Sep 25, 2012 3:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:
ArghONaught writes: “This reads as if the republicans are totally in favor of states and local rights until they get the slightly shorter end.”

Well of course. Remember when the State of Florida ordered a re-count of votes, the national republican party got scared and went to the U.S. Supreme Court for an ‘emergency injunction’ against the state to stop the re-count. Why would you seek federal intervention if you were supposedly for more states’ rights? And remember when Bush sued California for coming up with stricter air pollution laws than the federal minimum? Said a national law was better.

The GOP is not really about states’ rights. They are about control.

Sep 25, 2012 4:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState,
And the Libs too. It goes both ways.

Sep 25, 2012 5:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.