In the 1963 case Martin, Secretary of State of Texas, et al. v. Bush et al., the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over redistricting in Texas following the 1960 census. The appellants argued that since there was an increase in population according to the census data, it necessitated a reapportionment of districts for electing state representatives and senators. They contended that failure to do so violated their rights under Article I Section 2 Clause 1 and Amendment XIV Section 1 of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection under law as they were not being equally represented due to population disparities among districts. However, appellees countered by stating that no such violation occurred because apportionment had been done based on areas rather than populations within them; thus maintaining equality amongst all voters regardless of where they lived or how many people resided there. The court ruled against Martin and others (appellants), upholding lower courts' decisions favoring Bush and others (appellees). It held that while ideally representation should be proportional to population size per district, this wasn't constitutionally mandated unless clear discrimination could be proven - something appellants failed at demonstrating convincingly enough.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Martin, Secretary of State of Texas, et al. v. Bush et al., 1963 argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a state law based on its potential for misuse was an overreach and could set a dangerous precedent. The justices contended that it is not within the Supreme Court's purview to strike down laws merely because they might be used improperly; rather, this should only occur when there is clear evidence that such misuse has actually taken place or will inevitably happen. They also expressed concern about federal courts intervening too heavily in matters traditionally left up to individual states' discretion under our system of federalism.