[EL] one person, one vote and uneven population growth

[Justin Levitt]

No examples about jurisdictions actually drawing lines based on your 
precise question come immediately to mind, though I'd also be curious if 
others have examples.

As for courts passing on the theory, /Kirkpatrick/ and /Karcher/ 
suggested that this /might/ be a permissible reason to deviate from 
precise equality if it were consistently applied, and if the deviations 
at the time of the redistricting were nevertheless still within 
constitutional bounds when assessed by best-available census data (e.g., 
decennial census data).  Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 740-41 (1983) 
(citing /Kirkpatrick/).

In the racial/ethnic vote dilution context, the Illinois commission 
charged with drawing state legislative lines in the 1980 cycle did use a 
version of the projection argument, though it was hardly "consistently 
applied."  The commission justified its decision to divide Chicago's 
Hispanic community by claiming that "these districts were designed to 
accommodate future growth and migration patterns which [are allegedly] 
characteristic of these Hispanic communities. Commissioner Murphy 
analogized this justification to buying a snowsuit for a young child -- 
purchasing a suit several sizes larger than the growing child's present 
dimensions is warranted in order to allow the child to grow into the 
suit and thus prolong its use."  I think it's fair to characterize the 
reviewing court's description of the strategy as considerably disdainful 
(not least because other growing communities were not treated 
similarly).  But because there was a settlement ("fortified by 
instructions from the court"), there was no final opinion on its 
legality.  Rybicki v. State Bd. of Elections, 574 F. Supp. 1082, 1122-24 
(N.D. Ill. 1982).

Justin

On 8/10/2011 4:27 PM, Elmendorf, Christopher wrote:
> Does anyone on the list know whether any state or local government has 
> tried to defend departures from population equality among legislative 
> districts on the ground that the inequalities were created in 
> anticipation of geographically uneven population growth over the 
> projected 10-year lifespan of the map?
> A map that achieves perfect population equality at the time of its 
> adoption may of course result in less inter-district equality over 
> time (averaged across a sequence of five legislative elections) than a 
> map that underpopulates districts in high-growth 
> areas.  Time-of-enactment inequalities, when in service of "dynamic 
> population equality," would seem to me prima-facie reasonable when 
> there are geographically concentrated demographic groups with 
> larger-than-average family sizes, or when zoning restrictions channel 
> most of a city's population growth into a particular area.  But I 
> don't know whether any redistricters have self-consciously pursued the 
> dynamic equality strategy, or whether courts have passed on it.
> Thanks,
> Chris
> Christopher S. Elmendorf
> Professor of Law
> University of California at Davis
> 400 Mrak Hall Drive
> Davis, CA 95616
> tel: 530.752.5756
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110810/d3c3aab3/attachment.html>