The common thinking in challenges to state and local districting is
that deviations under 10% are allowed without the state coming forward
with any reason for the deviation. See Amy Henson's listserv
post. Deviations above 10% but below 17% appear to require some
reason.
The largest deviation in the Georgia case is 9.98% (i.e., under 10%),
but the court nonetheless struck the plan down. The approach that 10%
is no safe harbor is consistent with the Daly v. Hunt case, 93
F.3d 1212 (4th Cir. 1996), a case discussed in footnote "b" of the
Election Law casebook on page 121.
On page 41 of Larios, the court explained that the deviations
were not put in place to pursue any "legitimate" policy but "(1) to
allow rural southern Georgia and inner-city Atlanta to maintain their
legislative influence even as their rate of population growth lags
behind that of the rest of the state; and (2) to protect Democratic
incumbents." The court added on page 78 that it need not decide if
partisan gerrymandering alone might be a sufficient reason for a
deviation, given that the plan here was enacted as well to protect
regionalism and some, but only some, incumbents.
Rick
Henson, Amy wrote:
This case has significant implications because it is the first in which state legislative plans have been struck down on one person one vote grounds where the total population deviation range in the plans is under 10%.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nathaniel Persily [mailto:npersily@law.upenn.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 4:38 PM
To: Rick Hasen; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Georgia legislative plans struck down
The full decision is available on the Court's website at: http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/documents/larios_v_cox.pdf
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org