Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
"Kirkpatrick v. Preisler" is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the principles of redistricting and representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld a federal district court's ruling that invalidated a Missouri congressional redistricting statute from 1967, emphasizing the importance of the "one person, one vote" principle. This principle mandates that all electoral districts should be as equal in population as possible, thereby eliminating any acceptable variance between districts. The case set a precedent for future redistricting efforts by reinforcing that small population differences are not permissible in congressional districts.
While the decision was broadly interpreted to apply to state legislative districts as well, subsequent rulings, such as in "Mahan v. Howell," clarified that state legislatures have more flexibility in their redistricting processes. The dissenting opinions from Justices John M. Harlan II, Potter Stewart, and Byron R. White highlighted the contentious nature of the ruling and the ongoing debates about the balance of fairness and representation in electoral politics. Overall, this case illustrates the Court's commitment to ensuring equal representation in the democratic process while also revealing the complexities involved in the redistricting debate.
Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
Date: April 7, 1969
Citation: 394 U.S. 526
Issue: Reapportionment
Significance: The Supreme Court’s decision regarding a Missouri congressional redistricting act established that legislative districts should be as mathematically equal as possible.
The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, upheld a federal district court’s overturning of a 1967 Missouri congressional redistricting statute. In the opinion for the Court, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., held that there is no minimum population variance acceptable between districts in redistricting cases involving the House of Representatives. The one person, one vote principle means that all districts must be as precisely equal as possible, thereby ending the last of the arguments in legislative redistricting that a small variation should be acceptable. This case was broadly worded and was thought to apply to state legislative district cases as well, but the Court made it clear in Mahan v. Howell (1973) that state legislatures had greater latitude in redistricting themselves. Justices John M. Harlan II, Potter Stewart, and Byron R. White dissented.
