Karcher v. Daggett - No Rationale For Deviation Found

In rendering a decision on appeal, the majority Supreme Court justices sought to affirm the standard set in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler (1969) and White v. Weiser (1973). In Kirkpatrick, the Court refused to set a fixed figure regarding population deviation of reapportioned districts (ostensibly to take into account considerations such factors as maintaining voting demographics, geography, and to protect the rights of voting minorities). Some deviation was permissible if a state showed that such divergence was necessary to achieve a legitimate objective such as keeping municipal boundaries untouched or maintaining a political environment in which political parties could freely operate. However, although appellants argued that the deviation in the Feldman Plan was below 0.7 percent and was a reasonable, de minimus solution (acceptable minimum deviation), majority justices did not agree. The Court pointed out that in Kirkpatrick it had also held that that any deviation, no matter how small, required rationale which could be judicially justified. Because the state had failed to sufficiently convince the Court that its rationale was justifiable, the justices found no cause to support the appellants' claim.