In Travia et al. v. Lomenzo, Secretary of State of New York, et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a 1961 redistricting plan for the state assembly in New York violated the Equal Protection Clause due to population variances among districts. The appellants argued that this apportionment resulted in unequal representation and thus infringed on their constitutional rights. However, the court dismissed these claims without prejudice because they were not ripe for adjudication at that time - meaning there wasn't yet an actual controversy or harm demonstrated by those challenging it. This decision followed from a similar case (Baker v Carr) where it was established that federal courts have jurisdiction over reapportionment cases but must exercise restraint when dealing with political questions such as districting plans.

In the dissenting opinion for Travia et al. v. Lomenzo, Secretary of State of New York, et al., Justice Harlan argued that the Court should not have taken up this case because it was a political question and thus outside its jurisdiction. He believed that redistricting issues were best left to state legislatures and Congress rather than federal courts. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Article I Section 2 of the Constitution as requiring strict population equality among districts within a state; instead, he interpreted it as allowing some flexibility in district sizes to accommodate other legitimate considerations such as maintaining integrity of political subdivisions or providing effective representation for rural areas.