In the case of Connor et al. v. Finch, Governor of Mississippi, et al., 1976, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding redistricting in Mississippi following the 1970 census. The state's legislature had failed to enact a plan for reapportionment and so it fell upon federal courts to devise one instead. However, this court-drawn plan was challenged by African-American voters who argued that it diluted their voting power in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition against racial discrimination in voting rights. The Supreme Court agreed with these plaintiffs and held that while creating districts with equal populations is important under 'one person-one vote' principle from Reynolds v Sims (1964), avoiding dilution of minority votes also matters significantly as per Voting Rights Act (1965). Henceforth, when drawing up electoral maps both principles must be balanced appropriately; neither can be ignored at expense of other. This decision underscored importance given by US judiciary towards ensuring fair representation for all citizens irrespective of race or ethnicity within democratic processes like elections.

In the dissenting opinion for Connor et al. v. Finch, Governor of Mississippi, et al., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Mississippi's redistricting plan. He argued that this plan violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was not based on population equality and did not provide fair representation for all citizens. According to him, there were other plans available which would have achieved a better balance between these two principles without sacrificing either one of them completely as he believed the approved plan had done so by favoring geographical considerations over population equality and fair representation. He also criticized the court’s failure to articulate clear standards for evaluating state apportionment schemes under equal protection clause claims in future cases.