Brown v. Thomson

The U.S. Supreme Court had, in prior cases, ruled that deviation in population equality above 10 percent was discriminatory. In this case, however, the Court affirmed a maximum deviation of 89 percent. (Even the average deviation of this plan--16 percent--exceeded the minimum allowable deviation.) However, Wyoming's 63-seat reapportionment scheme provided representation for the people of Niobrara County which would not have been possible if the state legislature adhered to apportionment strictly by population. Thus, even though the value of a vote in Niobrara County essentially was "valued" at twice the value as would have been available under a strict "one person, one vote" determination, the Court reasoned that the exclusion of representation of that county in the state legislature made such an exception acceptable. Thus, the Court provided yet another important criteria which state legislatures could use when reapportioning voting districts. A state did not have to strictly adhere to apportionment by population if (as the Court outlined in previous rulings) it needed to maintain political subdivisions, and merge adjoining areas into one voting district. Additionally, in concordance with their decision in Brown v. Thomson, the Court determined that the difference in population equality was legal if a state could justify a legitimate interest in doing so.