as it was possible to do so. This understanding meant that for each majority-black district, the drafters adopted a district-specific racial quota. For example, if the 2010 census data indicated that a particular district as drawn in 2001 was 75% black in 2010, then the drafters believed that § 5 required them to draw that district’s new boundaries such that it remained 75% black. These quotas, supposedly required by § 5, posed a challenge for the drafters. Many of the majority-black districts as drawn in 2001 were ‘under-populated’ once the 2010 census data were applied. ‘Under-population’ refers to a district which has fewer residents than is required by the constitutional principle of one-person-one-vote. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (<HOLDING>). This meant that if no changes were made to
holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that the cap does not violate equal protection holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection holding that equal protection requires that state legislative districts be roughly equal in population