The U.S. Supreme Court case Roman, Clerk of the Peace, et al. v. Sincock et al., 1963 dealt with issues related to legislative apportionment in Delaware's General Assembly and whether it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to population disparities among districts. The plaintiffs argued that their votes were diluted because some districts had significantly more residents than others but still only had one representative each in the state legislature - a violation of "one person, one vote" principle. The court ruled in favor of Sincock and other appellants stating that such an unequal representation indeed violated their constitutional rights under Equal Protection Clause as it devalued certain citizens' votes compared to others'. This decision was part of a series by the Warren Court which established principles for legislative redistricting, emphasizing equal representation for equal numbers of people.

In the dissenting opinion for Roman, Clerk of the Peace, et al. v. Sincock et al., Justice Harlan argued that it was not within the jurisdiction of federal courts to intervene in matters related to state legislative apportionment and districting decisions unless there is a clear violation of specific constitutional rights. He contended that these issues should be left to states' discretion as they are inherently political questions which fall outside judicial competence or authority under Article III of the Constitution. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative consequences on local autonomy and democratic processes if federal courts were allowed to interfere excessively in such matters without explicit constitutional mandate.