In the case of Askew, Governor of Florida, et al. v. Hargrave et al., 1970, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding reapportionment in Florida's state legislature. The appellants challenged a lower court decision that upheld an apportionment plan for both houses of the Florida Legislature as constitutional under Article III Section 16 and Amendment VII to the Constitution of Florida and under Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment to Federal Constitution. They argued that it violated equal protection principles because it allowed for population variances among districts beyond what was necessary or justified by legitimate state interests such as preserving political subdivisions or maintaining compactness and contiguity in districting. The Supreme Court held that while some deviations from perfect equality may be constitutionally permissible where they are unavoidable despite good faith efforts to achieve absolute equality or where they result from attempts to balance other legitimate considerations against requirement of numerical equality, these justifications were not present here. Therefore, this apportionment scheme failed to meet constitutional standards due its excessive population variances among districts without sufficient justification.

In the dissenting opinion for Askew v. Hargrave, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down Florida’s reapportionment plan on grounds of population inequality among districts. He argued that there was no clear constitutional requirement for absolute equality in district populations and that minor deviations should be permissible if they serve legitimate state interests. In his view, maintaining political subdivisions like counties intact could justify some population disparities between districts as it promotes local representation and government efficiency. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on statistical data alone to determine constitutionality without considering other relevant factors such as history or practicality of redistricting efforts.