WPC= 2ABcR Z23|o "m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^!$/CCdb((gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkklWdPZH\I\I\IlWoY2(mWgRklWaMlWs\SCYG\IhSr\lWw_s\_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^*2gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"X^?Sf}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}FFoSaSFSu}So}o}oS}}FF}F}}}}SaF}}}}ox2xS?SS*SSSSSSSSSS}FooooooooooSFSFSFSF}}}}}}}}}}o}}}}}}ooooooo}oooo}}}}}}}}SFSFSFSFa}FFFFF}}}}}}SSSaaaaFFF}}}}}}}ooo}F}SaF}}}}}NX?q}So}}}}}EN}K}K-oo}SS}}SoKF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR}{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"m^)+9RRzx11IY)1))RRRRRRRRRR))YYYAljjjrjbrz>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQXgn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"m^3=Iff%==\o3=3offffffffff33oooQzKpzzz~~z=o=o\%ifQpQ=bp=:f=p\ifQQAp_\\U=o=o=3============f=iiiiiQQQQQK=K=K=K=p\\\\pppp~\ip\\~\\ziiiiQQQQpQQQQbbbbbbppK=K=K=K=pfz=z=z=z=z=pppp\\QQQzQzQzQzQ~A~A~Apppppp~\zUzUzUpz=pQzQ~A~\~\p\pNo3w\=QNNfffMDf=f=3GG\==\\pp%G=ooee3o< of population equality with little more than de minimis  J variation. Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 26!27  J (1975); Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 414 (1977) (same). Here the district court was not designing districts to remedy a oneperson, onevote violation, but courts should keep in mind that absolute population  JN equality [is] the paramount objective. Karcher v.  J& Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 732 (1983). Slight deviations  J are allowed under certain circumstances. Chapman,  J supra, at 26 ( With a court plan, any deviation from approximate population equality must be supported by enunciation of historically significant state policy or  J^ unique features.); Connor, supra, at 419!420 (same);  J6 Karcher, supra, at 740 ( Any number of consistently applied legislative policies might justify some variance,including, for instance, making districts compact,respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbent[s].).  To help in interpreting what follows, we explain a few terms. Overall population deviation is the difference in"   population between the two districts with the greatest disparity. Average population deviation is the average of all districts' deviation from perfect one person, one vote allocation. If population allocation in Georgia were perfect, each district would have 588,928 people, according to 1990 census data.  Here, the District Court plan has an overall population deviation of 0.35%, and an average deviation of 0.11%. The plan has a lower deviation than: the 1992 plan (with its 0.93% overall deviation and its 0.35% average deviation); the 1982 plan; or any other plan presented to the Court which was not otherwise constitutionally defective. 922 F.Supp., at 1561. Private appellants and amici in fact proposed plans with much higher deviations. ACLU 1A, the least change plan, had an overall population deviation of 0.94%; Abrams C had an overall deviation of 0.99%; and the LewisGingrich AmiciR plan came in last place with an overall deviation of 1.86%. The only plans with lower overall deviations than the court's plan were the Justice Department's Illustrative Plan (0.19%) and the ACLU's Abrams A (0.29%), whose constitutional infirmities are discussed above.  The District Court recited in detail those state policies and conditions which support the plan's slight deviations. The court explained Georgia's strong historical preference for not splitting counties outside the Atlanta area, 922 F.Supp., at 1561, and for not splitting  J precincts, id., at 1562. (The court observed that some splitting of precincts was unavoidable in Cobb County because of noncontiguous annexation patterns, and that it had split some precincts in Clayton County to achieve  J lower population deviations. Id., at 1562, n.6.) The court acknowledged that maintaining political subdivisions alone was not enough to justify less than perfect  J deviation in a court plan. See, e.g., Kirkpatrick v.  J` Preisler, 394 U. S. 526, 533!534 (1969) ( [W]e do not`"   find legally acceptable the argument that variances are justified if they necessarily result from a State's attempt to avoid fragmenting political subdivisions by drawing congressional district lines along existing county, municipal, or other political subdivision boundaries.). The District Court, in conformance with this standard, considered splitting counties outside the Atlanta area, but found other factors unique to Georgia weighed  J against it. See Chapman, supra, at 26. These included maintaining core districts and communities of interest. Georgia has an unusually high number of counties: 159, the greatest number of any State in the Union apart from the muchlarger Texas. These small counties represent communities of interest to a much greater degree than is common, and we agree with the District Court that such a proliferation provides ample building blocks for acceptable voting districts without chopping any of those blocks in half. 864 F.Supp., at 1377.  In any case, even if we had found the court plan's population deviation unacceptable, the solution would not be adoption of the constitutionally infirm, because racebased, plans of appellants. Indeed, before this Court at oral argument private appellants acknowledged the remedy for any one person, one vote violation would not be creation of a second majorityblack district. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28!29. Rather, we would require some very minor changes in the court's plan"a few shiftings of precincts"to even out districts with the greatest deviations.  That exercise, however, and appellant's objections to the court plan's slight population deviations, are increasingly futile. We are now more than six years from the last census, on which appellants' data is based. The difference between the court plan's average deviation (0.11%) and the Illustrative Plan's (0.07%) is 0.04%, which represents 328 people out of a perfect district`"    population of 588,928. The population of Georgia has not stood still. Georgia is one of the fastestgrowing States, and continues to undergo population shifts and changes. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 29 (1996) (Table 28) (showing Georgia tied for seventh place among the States in percentage of population growth from 1990 to 1995, with 11.2% growth). In light of these changes, the tinkerings appellants propose would not reflect Georgia's true population distribution in any event. The Karcher Court, in explaining the absolute equality standard, acknowledged that census data are not perfect, and that population counts for particular localities are outdated long before they are completed. 462 U. S., at 732. Karcher was written only two years from the previous census, however, and we are now more than six years from one. The magnitude of population shifts since the census is far greater here than was likely to be so in Karcher. These equitable considerations disfavor requiring yet another reapportionment to correct the deviation.  9H1 d d-V؃  2   The task of redistricting is best left to state legislatures, elected by the people and as capable as the courts, if not more so, in balancing the myriad factors and traditions in legitimate districting policies. Here, the legislative process was first distorted and then unable to reach a solution. The District Court was left to embark on a delicate task with limited legislative guidance. The court was careful to take into account traditional state districting factors, and it remained sensitive to the constitutional requirement of equal protection of the laws. 3 Stars (***  The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.3 Stars  Jp  p\ ` 3It is so ordered.ă  \ ! [Graphic omitted: see printed opinion.]