protection clause because the PRC districts are not equally apportioned on the basis of population. Cf. Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 416, 97 S.Ct. 1828, 52 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977) (“The Equal Protection Clause requires that legislative districts be of nearly equal population, so that each person’s vote may be given equal weight in the election of representatives.”). “In calculating the deviation among districts, the relevant inquiry is whether the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen, the aim being to provide fair and effective representation for all citizens.” Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 701, 109 S.Ct. 1433, 103 L.Ed.2d 717 (1989) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); id. at 703, 109 S.Ct. 1433 (<HOLDING>). {49} The record is devoid of any evidence
holding prima facie case met by evidence that 836 of jury pools had high school diplomas while only 432 of population over 25 did and proof that 181 of pool had college degrees as compared with 5 of population holding that a population deviation of 78 violated the oneperson onevote ideal holding that removal from house arrest and return to general prison population was a matter of inmate classification holding that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10 falls within the category of minor deviations  from mathematical equality among state legislative districts that are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the fourteenth amendment notwithstanding that the plain language of the constitution references no such statistical threshold holding that proof that 836 of jury pools had high school diplomas while only 432 of population over 25 did and proof that 181 of pool had college degree as compared with 5 of the population gave rise to inference of discrimination