This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In New Jersey, voting districts were usually drawn by dividing populations among the state's 14 vicinages based on federal census figures. However, to account for individuals who were not incorporated into census statistics, under the 'Feldman Plan,' the New Jersey legislature increased or decreased the number of representatives in each voting district. This meant that larger districts were provided with less congressional representatives although this was in conflict with census material. Political organizations asserted that this New Jersey apportionment regulation violated Article 1, §2 of the United States Constitution and requested that the state be estopped from implementing it. The state defended its regulation by asserting that the scheme was drawn under a good faith effort to achieve voting equality among each of its districts because the census data was inaccurate and under-representative of the population. The state also maintained that its alteration did not produce a disparity in excess of seven percent and therefore, was de minimus. The District Court held that the New Jersey reapportionment law was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause because the population structure upon which it was based cannot be supported by a good faith effort. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.