Karcher v. Daggett

In striking down a reapportionment plan enacted into law by the state of New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed their support of apportionment of voters into voting districts by a standard that required districts that were "as nearly as practicable" close to numerical equality. That standard, as in previous rulings, deliberately did not set absolute numerical standards which states could use in reapportioning districts. Of equal, or perhaps greater import, this decision did not recognize as valid preservation of racial or ethnic minority voting districts as reasonable justification for a state deviating from numerical equality among voting districts.

According to the 1980 census results, the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives informed New Jersey's governor that the number of seats to which the state was entitled had changed from 15 to 14. Amid much haggling and disagreement by both parties, the president pro tem of the New Jersey State Senate, Senator Feldman, drafted a 14-district plan (the Feldman Plan) which was finally passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor in January of 1982. The plan had used 1980 census figures as a basis for the new reapportionment of New Jersey congressional districts. According to that census, the state had just over 7.3 million voters; the ideal voter population per district should have been 526,059. However, the Feldman Plan, as drafted, did not achieve ideal-sized districts. There was an average deviation among them of 0.1384 percent, and maximum disparity of 0.6984 percent. (Interpreted as a population figure, the maximum deviation was 3,574 voters.)

The standards of equal representation alluded to in articles one and two of the Constitution provided that congressional districts should be "as nearly as practicable" of equal size. However, "as nearly as practicable" did not assume any fixed figure; thus every deviation, no matter how small, was open to challenge as not being equitable. As soon as the plan was enacted, people of varying interests joined with all elected Republican congressmen from New Jersey to challenge the plan (Senator Feldman's constituency was Democrat). They stated that the plan was contrary to the requirements of articles one and two of the U.S. Constitution and that the plan should not be used for the election of the members of Congress to the U.S. House of Representatives.

According to precedent set in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler (1969) and White v. Weiser (1973), appellees were required to prove that the variations in population equality avoided a "good-faith" effort to achieve the smallest possible deviation in apportioning districts, and appellants (the state of New Jersey) had to prove that deviations were required to achieve some legitimate state objective. However, although New Jersey argued that districts were apportioned to protect racial minorities, the district court held that the state of New Jersey failed to prove that deviations necessarily preserved the voting strength of minorities. The Feldman Plan was thus adjudged unconstitutional.

In debating the case for the state of New Jersey, the appellants' counsel explained that that the state legislature's rationale in selecting the Feldman Plan was that it tried to achieve "numerical equality" by keeping numerical disparity between districts as close to zero as possible. However, counsel pointed out, other criteria were taken into consideration such as preventing dilution of minority (African American) voting strength and preserving existing voting district boundaries. Even though the standard deviation for error for the New Jersey census was not yet available, the legislature used the best available data by comparing the standard deviation error in the federal census (which was 2.3 percent). Thus, since the maximum disparity between district populations was 0.6984 percent in the Feldman Plan, the state felt their reapportionment scheme was valid. The attorney for the appellants suggested that in rendering its decision, the district court had not given consideration to other justifiable standards such as preservation of the minority voting rights by failing to understand that the Feldman Plan would "protect interest(s) of African American voters in the Trenton and Camden areas." Furthermore, counsel concluded, that because the Supreme Court's decision in Kirkpatrick rejected setting of fixed, numerical reapportionment criteria, the state did not have a benchmark by which to determine appropriate variation in voting district size.

Conversely, the appellees' attorney argued that at the time when the Feldman Plan was enacted, several other competing plans were rejected which would have provided considerably lower population disparity between districts. Moreover, the New Jersey legislature did not offer proof of a "good faith" effort by failing to consider plans with lower maximum population differences between voting districts. The appellees' counsel summarily characterized the state's reapportionment scheme as being a "typical sample of gerrymandering" by a political party to utilize legal or political resources to their benefit.