In the case of ABATE et al. v. MUNDT et al., 1970, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a reapportionment plan for Rockland County's Board of Supervisors violated the Equal Protection Clause due to population variances among districts. The appellants argued that these disparities resulted in unequal representation and thus infringed upon their constitutional rights. However, after reviewing the specifics of this case, including its unique geographical constraints and political structure, as well as considering previous rulings on similar matters (Reynolds v Sims), the court upheld Rockland County’s apportionment scheme by a vote of 6-3. The majority opinion held that minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts do not make an apportionment plan unconstitutional under equal protection principle if there are valid justifications grounded in rational state policy such as maintaining integrity of political subdivisions or providing for compact districts while avoiding massive dislocation. This ruling set precedent allowing some flexibility in redistricting efforts when justified by legitimate governmental considerations; however it also emphasized that any deviation from absolute voter equality must be thoroughly justified.

In the dissenting opinion for ABATE et al. v. MUNDT et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a reapportionment plan which allowed for some deviation from perfect population equality was fundamentally flawed. He contended that any such deviation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it resulted in unequal representation and thus undermined democratic principles. Douglas further asserted that there were no compelling reasons to justify this inequality, dismissing arguments about maintaining political subdivisions or respecting geographic boundaries as insufficiently important objectives when weighed against equal representation rights. In his view, every citizen should have an equally weighted vote regardless of where they live within a state; anything less would be undemocratic and unconstitutional.