Avery v. Midland County - wikipedia Avery v. Midland County This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. ( Learn how and when to remove these template messages ) This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. ( November 2012 ) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( November 2012 ) Avery v. Midland County Supreme Court of the United States Argued November 14, 1967 Decided April 1, 1968 Full case name Avery v. Midland County, et al. Citations 390 U.S. 474 ( more ) 88 S. Ct. 1114 ; 20 L. Ed. 2d 45 Prior history Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas Holding The Court struck down local governmental districts inequality based their decision on the principle of `` one man, one vote. '' Court membership Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black William O. Douglas John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan Jr. Potter Stewart Byron White Abe Fortas Thurgood Marshall Case opinions Majority White, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan Dissent Harlan Dissent Fortas Dissent Stewart Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Equal Protection Clause This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 ( 1946 ) Wikisource has original text related to this article : Avery v. Midland County Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 ( 1968 ), is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that local government districts had to be roughly equal in population. Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 3 See also 4 References 5 External links Background Having already held in 1965 in Reynolds v. Sims that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the same logic to local government districts for bodies which also have broad policy - making functions. The case was brought by Henry Clifton Avery, Jr., more commonly known as Hank Avery, who was Mayor of the City of Midland, Texas. He challenged the districting scheme for the Commissioners Court of Midland County, a five - member county commission with four Commissioners elected in single - member districts and the County Judge elected at - large. One Commissioner 's district, which included almost all the City of Midland, had a population of 67,906, according to 1963 estimates. The others, all rural areas, had populations respectively, of about 852 ; 414 ; and 828. Avery brought his case in Texas District Court in Midland. Three of the four commissioners testified at trial that population was not a major factor in the districting process. The trial court ruled for petitioner that each district under the State 's constitutional apportionment standard should have `` substantially the same number of people. '' An intermediate appellate court reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that under the Federal and State Constitutions the districting scheme was impermissible `` for the reasons stated by the trial court. '' It held, however, that the work actually done by the County Commissioners `` disproportionately concerns the rural areas '' and that such factors as `` number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads, and taxable values '' could justify apportionment otherwise than on a basis of substantially equal populations. Opinion of the Court The five justices who struck down local district inequality based their decision on the precedent in Reynolds v. Sims. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Byron White said, `` In a word, institutions of local government have always been a major aspect of our system, and their responsible and responsive operation is today of increasing importance to the quality of life of more and more of our citizens. We therefore see little difference, in terms of the application of the Equal Protection Clause and of the principles of Reynolds v. Sims, between the exercise of state power through legislatures and its exercise by elected officials in the cities, towns, and counties. '' In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II asserted that the Writ of Certiorari to the Texas Supreme Court was improvidently granted in that the decision was not final, since the Texas court had ordered the County to redistrict. He also resumed his objections to the line of cases started with Reynolds v. Sims saying, `` I continue to think that these adventures of the Court in the realm of political science are beyond its constitutional powers, for reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinion in Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 589 et seq. '' Justices Fortas and Stewart agreed with Justice Harlan that the Writ of Certiorari was improvidently granted as the decision was not yet final, but disagreed as to their reasoning on the merits of the case. Justice Thurgood Marshall took no part in the deliberation of the case. See also Rotten and pocket boroughs, an English phenomenon List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 390 One Person, One Vote References Jump up ^ Texas Association of Counties Archived July 11, 2007, at the Wayback Machine. External links Text of Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 ( 1968 ) is available from : Findlaw Justia United States Fourteenth Amendment case law Citizenship Clause Slaughter - House Cases ( 1873 ) Elk v. Wilkins ( 1884 ) United States v. Wong Kim Ark ( 1898 ) Perez v. Brownell ( 1958 ) Afroyim v. Rusk ( 1967 ) Rogers v. Bellei ( 1971 ) Saenz v. Roe ( 1999 ) Due Process Clause Economic substantive due process Mugler v. Kansas ( 1887 ) Allgeyer v. Louisiana ( 1897 ) Lochner v. New York ( 1905 ) Coppage v. Kansas ( 1915 ) Adams v. Tanner ( 1917 ) Adkins v. Children 's Hospital ( 1923 ) Right to privacy Meyer v. Nebraska ( 1923 ) Pierce v. Society of Sisters ( 1925 ) Griswold v. Connecticut ( 1965 ) Doe v. Bolton ( 1973 ) Roe v. Wade ( 1973 ) Bowers v. Hardwick ( 1986 ) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ( 1989 ) Planned Parenthood v. Casey ( 1992 ) Lawrence v. Texas ( 2003 ) Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt ( 2016 ) Right to abortion United States v. Vuitch ( 1971 ) Doe v. Bolton ( 1973 ) Roe v. Wade ( 1973 ) H.L. v. Matheson ( 1981 ) City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health ( 1983 ) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ( 1989 ) Hodgson v. Minnesota ( 1990 ) Planned Parenthood v. Casey ( 1992 ) Stenberg v. Carhart ( 2000 ) Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England ( 2006 ) Gonzales v. Carhart ( 2007 ) Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt ( 2016 ) Civil rights liability under Section 1983 Monroe v. Pape ( 1961 ) McNeese v. Board of Educ. ( 1963 ) Pierson v. Ray ( 1967 ) Jenkins v. McKeithen ( 1969 ) Scheuer v. Rhodes ( 1974 ) Wood v. Strickland ( 1975 ) O'Connor v. Donaldson ( 1975 ) Paul v. Davis ( 1976 ) Imbler v. Pachtman ( 1976 ) Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York ( 1978 ) Procunier v. Navarette ( 1978 ) Owen v. City of Independence ( 1980 ) Harlow v. Fitzgerald ( 1982 ) Felder v. Casey ( 1988 ) Will v. Michigan Department of State Police ( 1989 ) Gonzaga University v. Doe ( 2002 ) Inyo County v. Paiute - Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community ( 2003 ) City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams ( 2005 ) Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee ( 2009 ) Ashcroft v. Iqbal ( 2009 ) Los Angeles County v. Humphries ( 2010 ) Connick v. Thompson ( 2011 ) Other Holden v. Hardy ( 1898 ) Muller v. Oregon ( 1908 ) Buck v. Bell ( 1927 ) Powell v. Alabama ( 1932 ) West Coast Hotel v. Parrish ( 1937 ) NAACP v. Alabama ( 1958 ) Griswold v. Connecticut ( 1965 ) Loving v. Virginia ( 1967 ) Epperson v. Arkansas ( 1968 ) In re Winship ( 1971 ) Edwards v. Aguillard ( 1987 ) Troxel v. Granville ( 2000 ) Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. ( 2009 ) Obergefell v. Hodges ( 2015 ) Equal Protection Clause United States v. Cruikshank ( 1876 ) Pace v. Alabama ( 1883 ) Civil Rights Cases ( 1883 ) Yick Wo v. Hopkins ( 1886 ) Plessy v. Ferguson ( 1896 ) Buchanan v. Warley ( 1917 ) Lum v. Rice ( 1927 ) Skinner v. Oklahoma ( 1942 ) Perez v. Sharp ( 1948 ) Goesaert v. Cleary ( 1948 ) Shelley v. Kraemer ( 1948 ) Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla. ( 1948 ) Sweatt v. Painter ( 1950 ) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents ( 1950 ) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ( 1954 ) Hernandez v. Texas ( 1954 ) Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County ( 1964 ) Katzenbach v. Morgan ( 1966 ) Loving v. Virginia ( 1967 ) Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education ( 1971 ) Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson ( 1971 ) Reed v. Reed ( 1971 ) Frontiero v. Richardson ( 1973 ) Craig v. Boren ( 1976 ) Milliken v. Bradley ( 1974 ) Plyler v. Doe ( 1982 ) Romer v. Evans ( 1996 ) Grutter v. Bollinger ( 2003 ) Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 ( 2007 ) Obergefell v. Hodges ( 2015 ) Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avery_v._Midland_County&oldid=790747239 '' Categories : United States electoral redistricting case law United States One Person, One Vote Legal Doctrine United States equal protection case law United States Supreme Court cases 1968 in United States case law Midland County, Texas United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court Hidden categories : Webarchive template wayback links Articles lacking in - text citations from November 2012 All articles lacking in - text citations Articles needing additional references from November 2012 All articles needing additional references Articles with multiple maintenance issues Talk Contents About Wikipedia Add links This page was last edited on 15 July 2017, at 20 : 41. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: in the case avery v midland county the us supreme court held that
Answer: struck down local district inequality