Directions: Read the Supreme Court case and then respond to the questions that follow. Remember to fully address each point using complete sentences and in paragraph format.

After the 2010 census, West Virginia lawmakers considered nine possible plans for creating new districts in their state. The Legislature rejected what it called the “Perfect Plan,” which would have created a population difference between districts of just a single person. That plan achieved almost perfect equality of population, but it would have split counties, put the homes of two incumbents in the same district and moved a third of the state’s population from one district to another, creating confusion and expenses for the state. The plan the Legislature adopted had none of these problems but it did create a gap between the most populous and least populous districts of about 4,900 people, or 0.79 percent. A group of West Virginia residents brought a case challenging the redistricting plan in federal court.

The Supreme Court ruled that small population variations among a state’s Congressional districts do not run afoul of the constitution. Even though advances in computer mapping technology have made it possible to achieve near-perfect equality in representation, states districts need not be perfectly equal. The ruling, called for deference to judgments made by state legislators.

Based on the information above, respond to the following questions:

(a) Identify the common constitutional clause used to make a ruling in both Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission and Baker v. Carr.

__ (b) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of Baker v. Carr led to a different holding than the holding in Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission.

__ (c) Describe an action that Congress could take to respond to the decision in Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission if it disagreed with the decision.

Your