1972-153, Author: It perhaps thought also that the policy had not been sufficiently or consistently followed here. III, § 28. We pointed out there that the "as nearly as practicable" standardthe standard that controls legislative apportionment as well as congressional districting, Reynolds v. Sims, supra, at 577demands that "the State make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality.
on the validity of the constitutional views expressed by the District Court in this case, which we do not undertake to do at this time, we vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case to that court for reconsideration in light of the recent Texas reapportionment legislation and for dismissal if the case is or becomes moot.
BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which DOUGLAS and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 772. Regrettably, today's decisions are likely to jeopardize the very substantial gains that have been made during the last four years. Swann v. Adams does not, in my view, suggest any support for the proposition that deviations as great as 10% are tolerable in the absence of any justification or explanation by the State. Syllabus. 343 F.
Toleration of even small deviations detracts from these purposes." On October 15, 1971, the Redistricting Board's plan for the reapportionment of the Senate was released, and, on October 22, 1971, the House plan was promulgated.
That plan divided the 150-member body among 79 single-member and 11 multimember districts. As *776 defined in the State's 1970 plan, a substantial number of districts departed significantly from the ideal.
Since the population of the State was 3,032,217, according to 1970 census data, the ideal would fix the population of each district at 20,081. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U.S. 73 (1960). As the District Court's opinion makes clear, the variations surely cannot be defended as a necessary byproduct of a state effort to avoid fragmentation of political sub-divisions.
In a separate appeal, we summarily affirmed that portion of the judgment of the District Court upholding the Senate plan. 343 F. Supp. Range of Deviations Number of States States . Attorney(s) appearing for the Case. For the reasons set out in Gaffney v. Cummings, supra, we do not consider relatively minor population deviations among state legislative districts to substantially dilute the weight of individual votes in the larger districts so as to deprive individuals in these districts of fair and effective representation. The districts range from 71,597 to 78,943 in population per representative, or from 5.8% overrepresentation to 4.1% underrepresentation. The District Court pointed out that "the State's method of computing deviations in the multi-member districts may distort the actual percentage deviations in those eleven districts.
66-67 (1968), and from Council of State Governments, Reapportionment in the Seventies (1973). ", The District Court found that "it is extremely difficult to secure either a representative seat in the Dallas County delegation or the Democratic primary nomination without the endorsement of the Dallas Committee for Responsible Government.".
Bullock v. Regester, 409 U.S. 840.
With him on the brief were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, J. Phillip Crawford, Oscar H. Mauzy, Wm. 377 U.S. 533, 579." Sept. 11, 2020.
§ 1253, which permits injunctions in suits required to be heard and determined by a three-judge district court to be appealed directly to this Court.
Nevertheless, the Court today sets aside the District Court's decision, reasoning, as in the Connecticut case, that a showing of as much as 9.9% total deviation still does not establish a prima facie case under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Get free access to the complete judgment in WHITE v. REGESTER on CaseMine.
Though the entire plan was declared invalid, the court permitted its use for the 1972 election except for its injunction order requiring those two county multimember districts to be reconstituted into single-member districts.
Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — Supreme Court — Jurisdiction And Venue — Direct Appeals From Decisions Of Three-Judge Courts. More fundamentally, it found that since Reconstruction days, there have been only two Negroes in the Dallas County delegation to the Texas House of Representatives and that these two were the only two Negroes ever slated by the Dallas Committee for Responsible Government (DCRG), a white-dominated organization that is in effective control of Democratic Party candidate slating in Dallas County.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 343 F. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Similarly, the Court noted, quoting from Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 710 (1964), that "the Constitution permits `such minor deviations only as may occur in recognizing certain factors that are free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination.'
Single-member districts were thought required to remedy "the effects of past and present discrimination against Mexican-Americans," ibid., and to bring the community into the full stream of political life of the county and State by encouraging their further registration, voting, and other political activities. Supp., at 730. June 18th, 1973, Precedential Status: Supp., at 142. Feb 26, 1973. The reapportionment plan for the Texas House of Representatives provides for 150 representatives to be selected from 79 single-member and 11 multimember districts. There is a statement, to be sure, in Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 444 (1967), that "[ d] e minimis deviations are unavoidable," but that statement must be viewed in context. . 343 F. . required . Thus, all candidates may be selected from outside the Negro residential area.
.
The proposition that certain deviations from equality of district population are so small as to lack constitutional significance, while repeatedly urged on this Court by States that failed to achieve precise equality, has never before commanded a majority of the Court.
Supp., at 737. Contributor Names White, Byron Raymond (Judge) Supreme Court of the United States (Author) Indeed, in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 530 (1969), we expressly rejected the argument. Although appellees did not specifically challenge the apportionment of senatorial districts, the District Court properly concluded that its finding of unconstitutional deviation in one house required invalidation of the entire apportionment plan.