Larios, (40) the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a three judge panel's decision holding Georgia's 2001 redistricting plan unconstitutional based on OPOV. (41) The Georgia Democrats attempted to push the "10 percent rule" to the extreme: the plan underpopulated nearly all of the heavily Democratic inner-city districts by 5 percent and overpopulated all predominantly Republican rural and suburban districts by 5 percent.
Carr and its progeny, but many states still do not adhere to the OPOV principle and the legal landscape remains murky.
We should take OPOV seriously because it makes sense from both a legal and political perspective.
That using population deviation is a simple and effective method for a party to gerrymander its way into a few extra seats that it might not otherwise control if districts were drawn to more exacting OPOV standards is clear.
A modern twist on the OPOV theory is to not try to equalize districts on the total number of people, but on, for instance, the number of citizens that are voting age population or even the number of actual voters.
Eliminating population deviations for all electoral districts will not completely eradicate partisan gerrymandering, to be sure, because "population equality guarantees almost no form of fairness beyond numerical equality of population." (75) Insisting that mapmakers strictly adhere to OPOV, however, eliminates a tool that can be used to extract partisan advantages with relative ease.