[1][2][3] The New Jersey Legislature adopted a redistricting plan which resulted in a one percent population difference between the largest and smallest districts.

The Court found that the defendants did not meet their burden of proving that the deviations in their plan were necessary to achieve a consistent, nondiscriminatory redistricting.

However, the court believed that the state could not prove that the population disparities preserved the voting strength of these minority groups.

[1][2][3] The Supreme Court upheld the district court's decision based on the plaintiffs' evidence of districts not drawn in "good faith," and the state's failure to offer a legitimate reason for the population deviations exceeding minimum possible as required by Article I, section 2 of the Constitution.

The dissenters thought that the population deviations—which were less than the margin of error for the census itself—was not the appropriate grounds for the holding and asserted that the districts should be ruled unconstitutional as a blatant political gerrymander.