KARCHER v. DAGGETT

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
81-2057
Appellee 
Daggett
Appellant 
Karcher
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the appellees)
(Argued the cause for the appellants)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

Democrats in control of the New Jersey Legislature designed a plan for congressional redistricting in the state which the outgoing Democratic governor signed into law. Even though the district populations differed by less than one percent from each other, they were clearly drawn to maximize Democratic power in the state.

Question 

Did the gerrymandering in the reapportionment plan violate Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution?

Conclusion 
Decision: 5 votes for Daggett, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

Even though the population differences in the districts were slight, the Court held that they were unconstitutional because they "were not the result of a good-faith effort to achieve population equality." Justice Brennan upheld past Court decisions (Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 1973, and Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964) and argued that relying on a strict numerical standard of populations to assess district equality would be misguided.

Cite this Page
KARCHER v. DAGGETT. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 10 November 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_2057>.
KARCHER v. DAGGETT, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_2057 (last visited November 10, 2014).
"KARCHER v. DAGGETT," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed November 10, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_2057.