In the case of Karcher v. Daggett, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey's 1982 congressional redistricting plan violated the Constitution's "one person, one vote" principle because it created districts with population differences as small as 0.6984%. The court held that states must make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality among districts and any deviations from this standard must be justified by legitimate state objectives. In this case, New Jersey failed to provide sufficient justification for its deviation from absolute population equality in its redistricting plan.

In the dissenting opinion for Karcher v. Daggett, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to invalidate New Jersey's congressional redistricting plan was based on an overly rigid interpretation of the "one person, one vote" principle. He contended that small deviations in population between districts should be permissible if they are a result of legitimate state interests such as respecting municipal boundaries or maintaining communities of interest. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to provide clear guidance on what level of deviation would be acceptable and suggested this could lead to unnecessary litigation and confusion in future redistricting efforts. In his view, while absolute equality is an ideal goal when drawing district lines, it may not always be practical or necessary to achieve fair representation.