Gaffney v. Cummings
| Gaffney v. Cummings | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 26–27, 1973 Decided June 18, 1973 | |
| Full case name | J. Brian Gaffney v. Theodore R. Cummings, et al |
| Docket no. | 71-1476 |
| Citations | 412 U.S. 735 (more) 93 S. Ct. 2321; 37 L. Ed. 2d 298 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Judgment for Respondents, Cummings v. Meskill, 341 F. Supp. 139 (D. Conn. 1972), reversed |
| Holding | |
| Minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts do not make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in this case, where the House districts deviated on the average by 1.9% and the maximum deviation was 7.83%, a prima facie case was not made out. A "political fairness principle" that achieves a rough approximation of the state-wide political strengths of the two major parties does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Douglas, Marshall |
Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973), is a Supreme Court decision upholding statewide legislative apportionment plans for Connecticut. The Court admitted that these plans entailed "substantial inequalities in the population of the representative districts." It observed that "the States have made virtually no attempt to justify their failure 'to construct districts ... as nearly of equal population as is practicable." It was a Fourteenth Amendment case. At issue was whether the election districts had been gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.