Absolute | |||
---|---|---|---|
Variance | % Variance | ||
District | Population | from Ideal | from Ideal |
1 | 461,870 | - 4,651 | 1.00 |
2 | 466,836 | + 306 | .07 |
3 | 465,221 | - 1,309 | .28 |
4 | 463,142 | - 3,388 | .73 |
5 | 465,093 | - 1,437 | .31 |
6 | 467,913 | + 1,383 | .30 |
7 | 461,704 | - 4,826 | 1.03 |
8 | 461,216 | - 5,314 | 1.14 |
9 | 467,483 | + 953 | .20 |
10 | 465,493 | - 1,037 | .22 |
11 | 468,148 | + 1,618 | .35 |
12 | 465,671 | - 859 | .18 |
13 | 477,856 | + 1,326 | 2.43 |
14 | 467,839 | + 1,309 | .28 |
15 | 458,581 | - 7,949 | 1.70 |
16 | 477,614 | + 1,084 | 2.38 |
17 | 467,912 | + 1,382 | .30 |
18 | 462,062 | - 4,468 | .96 |
19 | 477,459 | + 10,929 | 2.34 |
20 | 467,942 | + 1,412 | .30 |
21 | 466,656 | + 126 | .03 |
22 | 461,448 | - 5,082 | 1.09 |
23 | 466,248 | - 282 | .06 |
24 | 465,315 | - 1,216 | .26 |
Absolute Variance | ||
---|---|---|
District | Population | from Ideal |
1 | 446,545 | + 15 |
2 | 466,565 | + 35 |
3 | 466,266 | - 264 |
4 | 466,234 | - 296 |
5 | 466,620 | + 90 |
6 | 466,285 | - 245 |
7 | 466,336 | - 194 |
8 | 466,704 | + 174 |
9 | 466,678 | + 148 |
10 | 466,313 | - 217 |
11 | 466,258 | - 272 |
12 | 466,930 | + 400 |
13 | 466,663 | + 133 |
14 | 466,437 | - 93 |
15 | 466,359 | - 171 |
16 | 466,663 | + 133 |
17 | 466,432 | - 98 |
18 | 466,520 | - 10 |
19 | 466,649 | + 119 |
20 | 466,514 | - 16 |
21 | 466,753 | + 223 |
22 | 466,707 | + 177 |
23 | 466,424 | - 106 |
24 | 466,875 | + 345 |
Absolute Variance | ||
---|---|---|
District | Population | from Ideal |
1 | 465,986 | - 544 |
2 | 466,817 | + 287 |
3 | 466,835 | + 305 |
4 | 467,108 | + 578 |
5 | 466,258 | - 272 |
6 | 467,023 | + 493 |
7 | 466,336 | - 194 |
8 | 466,704 | + 174 |
9 | 466,678 | + 148 |
10 | 466,303 | - 227 |
11 | 466,569 | + 39 |
12 | 466,926 | + 396 |
13 | 467,173 | + 648 |
14 | 466,437 | - 93 |
15 | 466,359 | - 171 |
16 | 465,941 | - 589 |
17 | 466,340 | - 190 |
18 | 466,520 | - 10 |
19 | 466,154 | - 376 |
20 | 466,654 | + 124 |
21 | 466,875 | + 345 |
22 | 466,707 | + 177 |
23 | 466,167 | - 363 |
24 | 465,855 | - 675 |
‘Defendant has not submitted any plan of reapportionment as an alternative to S.B. 1. Plaintiffs have proposed two plans, B and C. Plan B is based on S.B. 1, but has a significantly lower deviation than S.B. 1. Plan C is based solely on population and is significantly more compact and contiguous than either S.B. 1 or Plan B. . . . The Court has considered Plans B and C, as well as the plan submitted by the intervening plaintiffs, and concludes that Plan C best effectuates the principle of ‘one man, one vote’ enunciated by the Supreme Court.'
‘That had the legislature desired to enact a statute consonant with the mandate of Article 1, s 2 of the U.S. Constitution, that is a plan which made each district as compact and contiguous and as nearly equal in population to each other district as practicable, taking into account solely population and not taking into account ‘social,’ ‘cultural,’ ‘economic’ or ‘other factors' including preservation of incumbent congressman, it could have enacted a plan the same as or substantially similar to that plan set forth in Exhibit C annexed hereto and herewith incorporated by reference as though set forth at length herein. That such plan is hereinafter referred to as ‘Plan C.“
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |